Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Asylum Seekers

Mr. Wilkinson: If he will discuss with the Commission of the European Union the processing of applications for asylum status of refugees within member states. [15751]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Government regularly discuss the handling of claims for asylum at a number of European Union forums on which the Commission is represented. In addition, United Kingdom and Commission officials have had preliminary discussions about the United Kingdom's presidency's planned work programme on immigration and asylum.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does the Minister believe that the present position is satisfactory, given that a coachload of gypsies can be taken, at their request, from Dover to seek asylum status in London, whose boroughs are already overburdened with such applications? Is it not time to re-examine the whole procedure at European level? Is article 11 of the Dublin convention—whereby a country to which a refugee first applies for asylum status can pass the applicant on to another country, like the United Kingdom, which is already under enough pressure in that regard—appropriate?

Mr. O'Brien: The position is far from satisfactory, but we inherited it from the Conservative party. A number of local authorities have had an enormous burden placed on them as a result of the withdrawal of benefits, without much thought, by the previous Home Secretary. We have said that we wish completely to re-examine that problem. We also need to look at the operation of the Dublin convention, which we also inherited. It is proving complex and difficult to make progress on that. There are now provisions that the state concerned must accept responsibility for a case before the refugee can be returned, which makes matters enormously difficult. Article 11 is complicated by other articles in the convention. Basically, the situation that we inherited from the previous Government is a bit of a mess.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend hold urgent talks with his colleagues on the continent about the absurd

situation that has arisen in relation to ferries, whereby staff are being threatened if they do not urgently take on board people who do not have permission to land in the United Kingdom? That is bizarre and should be remedied as quickly as possible.

Mr. O'Brien: They are not being threatened by us. Some ferry companies have expressed concerns about instructions that they are receiving at Calais from the local French authorities. I understand that Stena, P and O, and other ferry companies are negotiating with the local authorities in France on that point.

Mr. Fallon: Why should not Kent county council be fully reimbursed for the cost of looking after bogus asylum seekers and their families? Rather than council tax payers in my constituency having to fork out, why should not ferry companies have to bear the burden of asylum seekers who are subsequently sent home?

Mr. O'Brien: I have sympathy for Kent, but I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would admit that the previous Government created the problem. We have been placed in the position of having to pay £140 a week to Kent county council for each adult asylum seeker because benefits were withdrawn. We are reviewing the whole problem, which was created by the previous Government. Although the hon. Gentleman did not serve in that Government, the problem is the responsibility of many of his colleagues on the Conservative Benches.

Electoral Registration System

Mr. Barnes: If he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the electoral registration system. [15752]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): The House will be aware that my hon. Friend has a distinguished record in the House on raising electoral register issues— [Interruption.].

Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister is replying to Mr. Barnes, who is right behind him.

Mr. Howarth: The 1997 electoral register for the United Kingdom had the highest ever number of parliamentary electors registered to vote—44.2 million. We shall examine options for improving the effectiveness of the registration system still further in the coming months and shall consult the other parties in the House on that process.

Mr. Barnes: Is not this stakeholder idea a good notion, because there could be equal stakeholding in electoral registers for everyone? Millions of people are missing from the electoral registers, disabled people find it difficult to get to polling stations and the homeless face legal impediments to being on the register. Could we have an up-to-date, modern register? That is another good idea—modernisation. We could have it for electoral stakeholders.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is known as one of the great modernisers in the House. He raises some interesting


ideas, several of which I intend to pursue and one or two of which I do not. If he waits with some patience, he will find out in due course which falls into which category.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I share the view of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), but would the Minister also look at the converse of that point? It seems that, all too often, names are left on registers when people have moved from an area, even years ago. Will he look at the possibility of ensuring that electoral registration officers act together in dealing with that matter, which ought to be solved with the introduction of information technology?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. Given the modern databases and computer technology that are available to electoral registration officers, the sort of phenomena that he has described should not happen. Certainly, such considerations will be taken into account during the review that we shall undertake. Hopefully, the practices that are involved in electoral registration can be improved as a result of some of the suggestions that we shall examine.

Sentencing (Consistency)

Ms Shipley: What plans he has to ensure greater consistency in sentencing. [15753]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Government are committed to implementing an effective sentencing system and consistency in sentencing. I therefore intend to include provisions in the crime and disorder Bill to require the Court of Appeal to consider producing sentencing guidelines when appropriate cases come before it and to review existing guidelines. The provisions will establish a sentencing advisory panel which will offer advice to the Court of Appeal. There will be a statutory duty on the panel to consult those who represent interested bodies, such as victims and the police. Further details of those provisions are set out in a note which I am placing in the Library.

Ms Shipley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of my early-day motion calling for the reform of rape law? In the context of that and on behalf of the many victims of rape, their families and the support services, I should like to know whether reform of sentencing will include rape sentences. Has my right hon. Friend any plans to reform the Crown Prosecution Service, which is causing many problems for victims and the police force? Can there be a prohibition on the circulation in prisons of the sexual history of victims, because that is causing distress to all concerned and is a completely disgusting practice?

Mr. Straw: There are already sentencing guidelines. It is one area in which they already exist, following a decision by the Court of Appeal in the Billam case. The problem in rape cases is not so much the sentencing practice of the courts but of securing effective convictions. We are greatly concerned about the way in which women victims and other witnesses in rape cases can sometimes be subjected to the most appalling cross-examination by defendants. For that reason, the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the

Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has announced that we have established a full review of those practices and of whether laws of evidence ought to be changed. We hope to announce the results of that review very quickly. That will deal with the issue of whether a victim's previous sexual history should be adducible in evidence to the extent to which it is today.
My hon. Friend asked also about the reform of the Crown Prosecution Service. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General announced in May our determination to press ahead with major reforms of the CPS with the appointment of chief crown prosecutors for each of the police force areas in England and Wales— there are 42—and by establishing a full inquiry into other aspects of the CPS under Sir Iain Glidewell.

Mr. Ruffley: Is the Home Secretary aware that mandatory minimum sentences of three years for third-time burglars are popular with the public? May I therefore ask him when and how he proposes to implement that sentencing change?

Mr. Straw: Our position is exactly that of the previous Government. They willed the end, but failed to will the means. It was made absolutely clear in chapter 13 of the White Paper on sentencing, as it was on Royal Assent at the end of March this year, that decisions on implementing that part of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 depended on resources for which the previous Government had not made provision.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Home Secretary agree that sentences should reflect not only the nature of the crime, but the means and conditions of the offender? For example, in any two motoring cases, one offender might be rich and the other poor and to give them exactly the same sentence would be unfair. Should not the Home Secretary and the courts take into account not only, as I have said, the offender and the crime, but the particular social and economic conditions in that region?

Mr. Straw: Courts have to take into account a range of factors in coming to a decision on sentence, but the most important factor is the gravity of the crime and the degree of harm or damage caused to the victim. I understand what my hon. Friend says, but sentencing should be capable of greater categorisation and greater use of science. The means of offenders should, of course, be taken into account, but I remain concerned that, when living standards have risen in the past 10 years and unemployment has fallen, the use of the fine has dramatically fallen—half as many fines are issued today as were issued 10 years ago. There is no good reason for that.

Mr. Beith: While I welcome the Secretary of State's announcements about sentencing, does he recognise that sentencing policy is only as effective as the prison and probation system to which it directs people, and that an overpressed Prison Service cannot work miracles or provide effective rehabilitation? In sentencing, should we not bear in mind what is faced by prison officers in their daily work, not least Friday's 19-hour ordeal involving a prison officer in my constituency at Castington? Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the courage of those involved in bringing that to an end?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of what happened at Castington,


where a prison officer was taken hostage. I know a good deal about that circumstance. I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the great courage of that prison officer in enduring that hostage situation, and to the skill and professionalism of the other prison officers in bringing the hostage situation to a satisfactory and peaceful conclusion, without making any. concessions to the prisoners concerned.
On the right hon. Gentleman's wider question about prison and probation, of course we have to ensure that all punishment systems work effectively. That is one of many reasons why we are conducting a review of whether the Prison Service and the probation service could and should work much more closely.

Drug-related Crime

Mr. Eric Clarke: What estimates he has made concerning the amount of drug-related crime. [15771]

Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend may be aware that research by the Home Office shows that there is a strong relationship between drugs and crime—indeed, the figures show a much higher relationship than we expected. However, the results of that research are not yet complete. We hope to publish them early in the new year.

Mr. Clarke: I thank the Minister for his reply and congratulate the Government on the appointment of Mr. Hellawell as the anti-drugs co-ordinator—I do not like to call him a tsar because he is no royal; he is certainly not of that ilk. He is to visit Scotland, where drug-related crime is to the fore—police reckon that 70 per cent. of all thefts are drug related. Will the Minister guarantee that Mr. Hellawell will be given full authority to cross all the borders and break down all the barriers to ensure that crime does not pay and that we eradicate the crime of drug taking?

Mr. Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He will be aware that the Scotland figures also apply in England and in some parts of Wales. I join him in congratulating Keith Hellawell and his deputy Mike Trace and assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator's writ runs throughout Government. Every year, £500 million of Government money is spent on dealing with the problem. We want to be sure that every pound of that £500 million is spent in the right place, either in treatment or in criminal justice interventions, to ensure that every part of Government works towards eradicating the evil of drugs.

Mr. Malins: May I help the Minister by telling him that, on best estimates, 40 per cent. of all burglaries are committed by drug addicts, who steal to get money to fund their drug habits? Does he agree that the way that the trend is going means that that statistic can only get worse? Does he further agree that it is important to make our streets an area of zero tolerance on drugs and ensure that our prisons are drugs free? Too many prisoners go into prison as drug addicts, stay as drug addicts and then come out as drug addicts. It is a vicious circle which must be broken.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman raised three points. First, the most recent British crime survey showed that

the incidence of drug taking is not rising, but has levelled off. However, we do not want to be complacent about it. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's figure of 40 per cent. possibly underestimates the relationship between various sorts of acquisitive crime and drug taking; it may be even higher than he suggested.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government take very seriously the problem of drugs in prisons. At this very moment, officials at the Prison Service are reviewing all the statistics on drug abuse because we are not sure that they are sufficiently accurate to enable us to take proper action to eradicate the problem in prisons. Let it not be misunderstood—we are very serious about the problem, whether in prisons, on the streets, in clubs or elsewhere. The Government will not tolerate drug abuse and those who fuel it.

Ms Keeble: What work will be done looking at the problems of young people, especially very young people, and drugs-related crime? Will the drugs tsar be looking at that? Is my hon. Friend aware of the problems on the Blackthorn estate in my constituency where there is a large drugs problem; indeed, there was rioting there earlier this year? Will he or one of his hon. Friends visit the area to talk to people about the problems they face and the real loss in quality of life on that estate?

Mr. Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already visited the area, but I am sure that one of us will be willing to come again if there is a particular problem. My hon. Friend will be aware that we shall shortly introduce measures in the crime and disorder Bill relating to drugs testing and treatment. She may also be aware that the drugs prevention initiative, which is funded by the Home Office, is implementing a number of different and interesting measures, which we are currently assessing. We are keen that community-based initiatives to eradicate drugs on estates and in the wider community should be assessed and evaluated and the best practice possible introduced to deal with the problems.

Mr. Clappison: The link between drugs and crime is indeed a serious matter, and those who fuel drug abuse are committing serious offences. Will those convicted of offences involving the supply of drugs, who are serving sentences of between three months and four years, be eligible for early release under the Government's tagging scheme?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman will already be aware that we have introduced section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which covers the point he raised. He should be under no illusion that we shall deal just as seriously with such problems as the previous Government did. Quite frankly, the problems escalated during the previous Government's period in office, so we shall not take any lessons from Conservative Members. However, we are prepared to work with the Opposition on those issues. If the hon. Gentleman has any serious points to make, we shall listen to them. It is a serious problem, and we take it seriously.

Mr. Lakhinder Reel

Mr. McDonnell: If he will review the investigation by the Metropolitan police of the case of the death of Mr. Lakhinder (Ricky) Reel. [15781]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that that is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. From what I have been told, however, it appears that the investigation conducted so far by the Metropolitan police service has been thorough and sensitive. The Metropolitan police have promised to follow up any further information that may arise. The Met are also awaiting receipt of the coroner's report. There are no grounds for me to act further at this time.

Mr. McDonnell: I appreciate the nature of the reply, in view of the coroner's inquest. I am also grateful for the facilities that were provided last Friday for me to meet the investigating officer, with the family present. May I ask the Home Secretary, as the police authority for London, to examine with the Commissioner three policing procedural matters? The first matter is the liaison arrangements between investigating officers in cases in which the police station nearest the home of the missing person is different from the station that is nearest to the location where the person was last sighted; the second is the communication strategy between investigating officers and the family of a missing person; and the third is the impact of major investigations on outer London policing divisions, which have recently suffered personnel losses because of the funding formula for policing in London.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend raises three important issues, which are worthy of consideration, and I am sure that the Commissioner will examine each of them. We have to be careful, however, not to read general points into a specific investigation until we have full information. I reiterate that it is not appropriate to comment further on the detail of the case until the coroner's report has been received.

Police Officers (Beat Patrol Duties)

Mr. Hawkins: What proposals he has for increasing the number of police officers allocated to beat patrol duties. [15782]

Mr. Michael: Ministers have no direct control over police numbers or their deployment. Under legislation passed by the previous Government in 1994, it is for the individual chief constable or chief officer to determine the number of police officers in their force. However, we are working with police to reduce administrative burdens and to enable chief constables to put more officers on the beat and back into the community.

Mr. Hawkins: Does the Minister agree with Sir Paul Condon, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who was quoted in a recent article in the New Statesman as saying
 "I don't buy your notion that bobbies on the beat are anachronistic. If it reduces the fear of crime, I have to find ways to satisfy that"?

Does the Minister agree that—despite the answer that he has already given—it is the Government's responsibility to try to reassure the public that they will see police officers, and that police officers seen on the beat help to deter criminals and reassure the public, which is a crucial part of policing?

Mr. Michael: What the public want is to see police officers in their community, getting involved in tackling the problems of crime and disorder that have been allowed to grow in recent years. The Metropolitan police, like other police forces across the country, are suffering from the disadvantage of reduced police numbers and the previous Government's failure to keep their promises.

Mr. Mullin: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is required is not greater resources but more effective use of existing resources? May I draw his attention to the success of Northumbria police, for example, in shifting large numbers of police officers out of bureaucracy—there by also ending a few scams—and back on to the streets? May I draw his attention also to the safer cities programme—it was officially launched today in my constituency—which is reintroducing police officers into some of the most crime-ridden parts of Sunderland? In the 1980s, police effectively abandoned those areas.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend raises some important points. Northumbria has shown the way in some of its approaches to dealing with crime, one of which has been getting police officers back into direct police work. Another one is the way in which Northumbria has worked in partnership with local authorities to tackle and prevent crime. Great gains can be made, which is why we are including a requirement in the crime and disorder Bill for a partnership between police and local authorities in ensuring that we mobilise all the strengths of the community to tackle and prevent crime.

Mr. David Heath: Does the Minister agree that tackling crime is a matter of both management and resources? Does he agree that, when budgets are squeezed, patrol duties are the most vulnerable part of police activity? Does he agree that patrol cuts are a result of the previous Government's lamentable failure to match their promises with action by putting policemen back on to forces? Will he give an assurance that, after next year's police settlement, there will be more officers—not less— on the beat?

Mr. Michael: My only quibble is that the hon. Gentleman should have said "fewer" police officers rather than "less". There was a failure by the previous Government, and it is a matter both of resources and deployment. We want police officers deployed to tackle the problems of crime and disorder experienced by the community. The Audit Commission did draw the conclusion to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention, but it also said that patrolling must be purposeful; it is not just a question of police officers standing at the end of the street or patrolling without purpose—there must be targeted activity aimed at the prevention of crime and disorder.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If this is an exercise in reassuring communities that they can feel safe, why is


there not a substantial increase in the number of special constables who have always been supported by the general public and who, I understand, are cheap and effective in comparison to full-time policemen? Is it not the case that they allow us to concentrate our resources during peak periods of the week when crime is rife?

Mr. Michael: Again, my hon. Friend makes a good point. We want not only to reassure communities but to tackle the crime and disorder that is causing them problems. It is a question of being effective, not only of providing reassurance.
My hon. Friend's question gives me the opportunity to say that we value the work of the special constabulary very highly. Early next year, we shall be actively promoting the recruitment of special constables in the special constables week. I hope that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will support that initiative and encourage people to join the specials.

Mr. Greenway: In spite of what the Minister says, in a written answer to me only three weeks ago, he confirmed that there are now 2,322 more police constables in post than there were in May 1992. Is it not clear that, unless police budgets are protected from the 1 per cent. increase in inflation caused by the Government since May this year, there will be fewer, not more, police constables on the streets? Is not the Government's continuing silence on the question of police funding a clear sign that fighting crime is a low priority for new Labour, just as it was for old Labour?

Mr. Michael: That was a pathetic attempt. There will be a statement on police finances next week, I believe, which follows the pattern established by the previous Government of when to inform the House of the intended finances for next year.
I notice that the hon. Gentleman cites the number of constables rather than the number of police officers—he is very selective. The number of police officers in England and Wales fell from 127,627 in March 1992 to 127,158 at the end of March 1997. Let me do the arithmetic for the hon. Gentleman: that means a cut of 469 officers, or 1,469 fewer than were promised by the previous Government in the 1992 election—another broken promise.

Crime Victims (Support)

Mr. Salter: If he will make a statement on the Government's plans to give greater support for victims of crime. [15783]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): We are firmly committed to helping victims of crime and to taking action to redress the balance of the criminal justice system in favour of the victim. We shall ensure that all criminal justice agencies give a high priority to treating victims with sensitivity and respect, that they listen to their views and that they continue to improve the services that they provide to victims. Within six weeks of taking office, we increased Victim Support's grant by £1 million a year.

Mr. Salter: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is she aware of the excellent restorative justice scheme operated

by Thames Valley police, whereby offenders are confronted with the victims of crime? It has had quite startling results in reducing reoffending. What proposals do the Government have for extending the scheme to other areas of the country?

Ms Quin: I pay tribute to the work done in the Thames Valley area on restorative justice. That theme is also being taken up in other initiatives across the country. I have seen some good examples, such as the courses run by the Greater Manchester probation service, aimed at making offenders realise the effect on their victims of what they have done and at promoting reparation and restorative justice. We expect to highlight the approach in our forthcoming White Paper on youth justice.

Mr. Jenkin: Does the Minister agree that the most distressing experience for victims is when the police have to tell them that they do not have the resources or the manpower to pursue the criminals? Will she give the commitment that my right hon. Friend the previous Prime Minister gave, that there will be more bobbies on the beat, or are the Government going back on that?

Ms Quin: A commitment was given, but the promise was broken, as has just been pointed out. My hon. Friends have spoken of initiatives that are being taken in particular police forces. We need to build on those initiatives so that communities can feel safer than they did under the previous Government.

Helen Jackson: My hon. Friend will be aware that one in four victims of violent crime are likely to have been victims of domestic violence. Many more such victims are too scared to report the fact to the police. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are not always treated as sympathetically as they could be, not so much by police officers as by some of the other statutory agencies? What plans does she have to develop inter-agency working, involving housing bodies, the Benefits Agency, the police and others, to ensure that victims get the support that they need?

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend raises an important point, although I believe that a lot of progress has been made by the police and other authorities towards being more sensitive and aware of the issues. I am also glad that the Home Office and the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Women's Issues are addressing the problem of domestic violence with considerable urgency.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the hon. Lady accept that all hon. Members are pleased that the Government are continuing the record of the previous Government in increasing the grant to Victim Support? Does she agree that victims of burglary would greatly appreciate the knowledge that repeat burglars will be locked up for a considerable time? As the Home Secretary always mis-states the previous Government's position and then hides behind it, may I ask the hon. Lady a different question? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes the resources available, would she be in favour in principle of mandatory minimum sentences for repeat burglars?

Ms Quin: We made it clear in opposition that we were in favour in principle. The right hon. Gentleman is


mis-stating the situation under the previous Government, because resources were not made available. That was clear from the Home Office press release at the time.
On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, rather than supporting Victim Support, as he suggests, the previous Government froze the grant.

Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of supporting victims is through the criminal injuries compensation scheme? Does she also agree that the previous Government made a terrible mess of that, having their first attempt thrown out by the courts? Does she further agree that various aspects of the scheme need to be looked at? The eligibility rules for victims of domestic violence have not been reviewed for nearly 30 years. Some 200 families of victims of murder or manslaughter slipped through the net because of the hiatus caused by the previous Government's mess-up when they tried to review the scheme.

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government made a tremendous mess of the scheme. We soundly criticised them at the time.

Travellers

Mr. Laurence Robertson: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the present laws relating to the occupying of land by groups of travellers. [15784]

Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 gives two sets of powers—one to the police and one to local authorities—to deal with problems as and when they arise. The police can remove trespassers in justified circumstances. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is looking at the powers given to local authorities and is conducting a review. He hopes to publish guidelines in the spring which will make it easier for local authorities to deal with the situation.

Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that reply; I am encouraged by what he said. Is he aware that at least 100 people descended on my constituency of Tewkesbury this summer? It took a full two weeks to clear them from the land, during which time there was great mayhem in the town, which is trying to regenerate itself. Will the Minister assure my constituents and the House that he will carefully monitor the situation?

Mr. Howarth: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I understand that the problem to which he refers occurred as a result of a wedding among some travelling people; there was a similar incident a few years ago in my constituency. Such incidents cause difficulties and the hon. Gentleman is right to make that point. We are keeping the matter under review and, as I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will publish helpful guidelines in the spring.

Dr. Tony Wright: The present law is not working, so the need for the review is extremely urgent. Areas such as mine suffer not from new age travellers but from old age travellers, who give rise to considerable cost and

considerable nuisance. The previous Government removed the obligation to provide sites and, in doing so, made the problem a lot worse. Will my hon. Friend ensure that we reimpose and strengthen the obligation to provide sites, preferably on a regional basis? We can link that to tougher enforcement powers.

Mr. Skinner: Are there any new Labour travellers?

Mr. Howarth: I hope that, in referring to old age travellers, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) was not referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
This is, however, a serious subject. If my hon. Friend needs reassurance, he can have it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions recognises the problem, and that is why he is conducting a review. He will consult local authorities and we hope that the end of that process will be very helpful.

Mr. Garnier: Will the Minister urge local authorities, at both district and county level, police forces, the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to co-operate in the exchange of intelligence so that local areas know when a group of new age travellers are about to descend? The provision of sites, such as happened under the old law, will not assist, because new age travellers are not interested in static sites; they want to go where they please.
New age travellers are a nuisance. In my constituency, there have been two large encampments and a huge number of sheep were killed as a result of their activities. They even had the nerve to say, during the court case to decide whether the local authority could remove them, that their dogs did not kill the sheep because their dogs were vegetarian. Will the Minister ensure that local authorities take a grip of the law? The law is there; it just needs using.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. and learned Gentleman may or may not be right; we need to wait for the outcome of the review. Clearly, the dogs were new age dogs. It is important that, when intelligence can be shared between local authorities, the police and any other agencies concerned, it should be. I suspect that the difficulty is that the intelligence the hon. and learned Gentleman describes may not exist in a form in which it can be easily shared. Where it does, we would encourage those concerned to share it.

Human Rights

Ms Jenny Jones: What measures he intends to introduce to safeguard the rights of British citizens under the European convention on human rights. [15785]

Mr. Straw: We introduced the Human Rights Bill in another place last month and published a White Paper at the same time. The Bill gives further effect in domestic law to the rights and freedoms set out in the convention and will significantly improve the ability of people in the United Kingdom to have access to their convention rights before our own courts.

Ms Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome reply. May I clarify with him the position of


British citizens who are already bringing cases to the Strasbourg Court and are thereby locking themselves into a lengthy and expensive procedure? Will British citizens be able to transfer their cases into the British legal system when the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our law is complete?

Mr. Straw: We thought about that issue carefully in preparing the Bill. However, we decided that it would not be practicable to allow for cases to be brought retrospectively in the British courts. For that reason, the Bill provides for a right of action in the British courts that will come into force at the same time as the Bill.

Mr. Green: Does the Home Secretary accept that one effect of incorporating the European convention on human rights into our law will be the politicisation of the judiciary? If he does not, will he explain his position to the Lord Chancellor who, in 1996, wrote an article expressing those very dangers?

Mr. Straw: I do not accept that for a moment. I am interested to learn that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the shadow Lord Chancellor. It was Lord Kingsland, the shadow Lord Chancellor, who said on the radio on the day we published the Bill:
 "One thing you could say in favour of the Bill is that it domesticates the powers of the institutions of the Convention with the result that our own judges are now making these decisions instead of the judges in Strasbourg.
The Conservative party needs to get its act together on this, as on so many other issues. Of course we are not remotely politicising the British judiciary; indeed, we have constructed the Bill carefully to ensure that there remains a clear separation between the role of the judiciary and the role of Parliament.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Do prisoners have any rights under the European convention? In particular, does Myra Hindley have any way of challenging my right hon. Friend's decision to keep her in prison until she dies, while other people convicted of heinous, revolting and repulsive crimes may be released early?

Mr. Straw: Any individual, whether or not he or she is a British citizen, who is resident or in Britain has a right under the European convention at the moment and subsequently upon incorporation. Myra Hindley has such rights. Indeed, she is seeking to exercise her rights under British law by bringing an action for judicial review of my predecessor's and now my decision in respect of the whole life tariff which he set and which I confirmed last week.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: What the Lord Chancellor actually said about the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into British law was that it offers
 "immense scope for political and philosophical disagreement
between the House and the courts. I have a simple question for the Home Secretary: does he agree?

Mr. Straw: The Lord Chancellor made it absolutely clear that he accepts—and, indeed, he was one of the architects of the scheme—the arrangements which we

have laid down in the Human Rights Bill to separate the role of the judiciary from the role of the House. One of the important parts of the scheme of incorporation that we have adopted—views have moved on since the Lord Chancellor made that point—was to ensure that the sovereignty of Parliament was absolutely protected. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there will be no provision in the Human Rights Bill by which the courts will be able to override and render void a Bill or an Act of Parliament.

Criminal Justice System

Mr. Burstow: What plans his Department has to ensure equal treatment for people with communication or learning difficulties under the criminal justice system. [15786]

Ms Quin: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, on 13 June we announced an urgent, wide-ranging examination of the way in which vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, including those with communication or learning difficulties, are treated by the criminal justice system, with the aim of assisting them to give their best evidence in court.
There is existing protection for suspects in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the accompanying codes of practice which provide safeguards for people in police detention, including suspects who may be considered vulnerable and in need of additional protection.

Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware of the campaign being run by Community Caremagazine to highlight the failings in the criminal justice system in respect of disabled people? Will she ensure that the interdepartmental working group that is looking into these matters takes a close look at the guidance and training that are available for judges and others involved in the criminal justice system to ensure that ignorance does not represent a barrier to people with learning and communication difficulties obtaining their right to justice?

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The interdepartmental working group is aware of the campaign to which the hon. Gentleman referred and will look into the issues that he raised.

Mr. Olner: This is a very important point. All levels of the criminal justice system should be brought into the review. I would welcome an early end to the review so that people from all levels can get the justice and respect that they deserve but on occasions are missing.

Ms Quin: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I have come across examples in my constituency which very much reinforce that point of view. The group is aiming to report to us by the end of the year. We certainly intend wherever possible to improve the situation.

Crime (Young People)

Mr. Linton: What plans he has to tackle crime among young people. [15787]

Mr. Straw: The Government's plans to tackle youth crime were set out in three consultative documents which


were issued this autumn. The main features include proposals to speed up the youth courts, replace cautions with a new final warning scheme, introduce new community-based sentences, strengthen arrangements for custodial punishment for young people and establish a youth justice board for England and Wales with local youth offending teams. Many of those features will be contained in the forthcoming crime and disorder Bill. I intend shortly to publish a White Paper which will reinforce the proposals and look to future reforms of the youth court system.

Mr. Linton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is already widespread agreement that one of the most effective proposals in his consultation documents is the reparation order, which will force young people to face the consequences—and, indeed, the victims—of their actions and give victims the chance to come face to face with the perpetrators of the crimes from which they have suffered? Does he think that the principle of reparation can be allowed further to permeate the youth justice system, as it is far more likely to be effective than traditional forms of punishment? Does he believe that child mentoring will also play an important part in preventing youth crime?

Mr. Straw: I disagree with my hon. Friend in one respect only: in suggesting that reparation is not a traditional form of punishment. Reparation is the most effective and traditional form of punishment, by which one forces the offender to say sorry and repair the damage which he or she has caused. One of the problems with the youth justice system is that it effectively ignores the interests of both the victim and the wider public, and detaches the system to some high level of abstraction, where even the offender is simply a spectator in an endless and often useless process. We are determined to tackle that.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that prison institutions for young people are rather like an old school tie: a costly way of confirming a young person's identity for life? Although those who have committed the most grievous offences will need to be imprisoned, will he build—[Interruption.] New Labour is so hard-hearted. I am urging the Home Secretary to assume more enlightened colours rather than subscribe to the harsh face of new Labour.
Rather than shunting on troubled and troublesome young people, will the right hon. Gentleman urge education, social services and health departments to work with his agencies to reduce the number of young people in prison institutions?

Mr. Straw: No one wants to see young people gratuitously put in prison, but they are there because they have committed a series of crimes and have to be put away. The major problem that we face of the large number of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds who are sent to prison or young offenders institutions arises as a result of the wholesale failure of the youth justice system to deal effectively with those young offenders at an earlier age. The system is so soft for so long before, to compensate, it becomes over-harsh.
A major part of my reforms is designed to cut delays in dealing with young offenders, especially very young offenders. It is designed to ensure that the system is

consistent, and that, when it gives a final warning, it really is a final warning. Where the courts come to the view that 12 to 14-year-olds have offended so badly that the need for protection of the public and their own protection requires them to be locked up, not in prison but in secure accommodation, the provision exists to enable that to happen.

Ms Abbott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reconviction rate for young people who enter young offender institutions under the age of 17 is 88 percent? Does he therefore agree that putting more and more young people inside for longer and longer is not necessarily the answer to rising levels of juvenile crime?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right, but the depressing fact is that the reconviction rate for such offenders after any kind of punishment—custodial or non-custodial—is far too high. It is also true, and it has emerged from a number of inspectors' reports, that that average—which she quoted correctly—disguises large variations in performance between different young offenders institutions. With the same resources, some are remarkably successful in ensuring that young offenders lead more successful lives when they get out and some are less successful. As with the effective schools programme, the challenge today is to ensure that the resources available to those institutions are used more effectively, to establish more constructive regimes and to ensure that there is a path back into work for young offenders. That is why it is important to link work with young offenders with the welfare-to-work programme.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will young people—16 to 18-year-olds—be covered by the tagging proposals that he announced to the House last week? Perhaps the Home Secretary might also care to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) about whether tagging will cover those guilty of drug offences, because his frantic briefing did not quite make it to the Under-Secretary, his hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). [Interruption.] Indeed, it seems to be continuing.

Mr. Straw: The answer to the first question, as I made clear last week, is that the tagging arrangements will be rolled out first to individuals in prison establishments. On the second question, I made it clear in the statement on Thursday that risk assessments will be made of any offender with a nominal sentence of between three months and four years. Such offenders will not be released under the tagging arrangements unless the governor of the prison judges that it will be safe to do so.

Closed Circuit Television

Mr. Bill O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the introduction of CCTV cameras into smaller towns and public places; and if he will make a statement. [15788]

Mr. Michael: I strongly support the use of closed circuit television—CCTV. I can announce today that the Government will support CCTV in the next financial year with a further CCTV challenge competition. In total, £9 million will be spent on CCTV in 1998–99.


Although a large proportion of that expenditure was already committed by the previous Administration, I expect to be able to spend at least £1 million on new schemes. Full details will be issued in bidding guidance soon, but I intend to give priority to imaginative and innovative schemes that expand the boundaries of CCTV use.

Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that CCTV helps police and local authority strategies to combat crime? Does he accept that, under the former Government, the small, former urban authorities, of which there are four in my constituency—Ossett, Horbury, Normanton and Stanley—were left out and let down? Can he assure me those smaller authorities will now be considered by a Labour Government?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the success of CCTV, especially when linked to other approaches to reducing and preventing crime. In the bidding process, we will look for innovative schemes, not necessarily those in major town and city centres. In places where there is a critical mass of CCTV, it is possible to link smaller towns or out-of-town areas to the same monitoring system and that is often extremely valuable.

Mr. Gray: I welcome the Minister's announcement that he will follow our support for CCTV. Does he agree that the £1 million that he intends to add to the spending that the previous Government announced is pitiable? If CCTV is to be useful, it must be a national scheme, in Conservative as well as in Labour areas, and £1 million will go nowhere.

Mr. Michael: It is interesting that Opposition Members wish to spend money now that they are in opposition and not in government. Immediately before the election, the previous Government spent money that they did not have. Some £8 million of next year's finances was allocated by the Ministers who left office in May and that has left us with limited flexibility, but we will do the best with what we have.

Racially Motivated Crime

Mr. McNulty: What proposals he has to curb the incidence of racially motivated violence. [15790]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The lives of far too many people have been damaged or destroyed by racial violence and harassment. Labour promised in its manifesto to crack down on mindless racist thuggery, and we will do so. The crime and disorder Bill will create new offences of racial violence and harassment; it will send out a clear message that racist crime is unacceptable.

Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The figures published this morning were extremely disturbing, especially as they included only reported crimes of racial violence, and the problem is in fact much bigger. Will my hon. Friend welcome the comments of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) in the policing for London debate about continuing with a bipartisan approach to racially motivated violence, but agree that the right hon. Gentleman will be judged by his actions in the way in which he votes on the provisions concerning racial violence in the crime and disorder Bill, rather than by his words, because words are easy?

Mr. O'Brien: I agree. I hope that the new offences will have broad support in the House. I noted that the new Leader of the Opposition dissociated himself from comments about multiculturalism by the noble Lord Tebbit some weeks ago. I hope that that is a sign of a new attitude in the Tory party.
Britain is a multicultural society, and in many ways a successful one, but we still have problems of racist violence to resolve, and I invite the Conservatives to join the Liberal Democrats and the Government in backing a multicultural Britain to be proud of and in sending a clear message to all racists that if they have not yet learnt the lesson that this is a multicultural society in which we will crack down on racism, some of them will learn it from behind bars.

Jobs Summit

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the special European Council on employment in Luxembourg on 21 November, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The Council conclusions have been placed in the Library.
Unemployment in Europe represents not only personal tragedy on a huge scale but a tremendous waste of economic talent and potential. At the Amsterdam European Council in June, jobs were given the top priority that they should always have had. We agreed a new treaty framework for action on employment: the employment chapter.
The aim was a co-ordinated strategy to promote a skilled, trained and adaptable work force and flexible labour markets responsive to economic change. At Luxembourg, the first time that the European Council has met just to discuss jobs, we decided how to put that Amsterdam aim into effect.
Let me make it clear at the outset that we are not creating new European Union competences or, indeed, new European Union spending programmes, although we have agreed some useful redeployment of existing resources. We can agree at European level the broad lines of a practical approach to job creation. We can commit ourselves to finding and following best practice wherever appropriate. We therefore sought and agreed a set of common, practical objectives to be enshrined in non-binding guidelines for national employment policies.
At the heart of Europe's new approach is the need to create the right macro-economic framework and to move more rapidly on the structural reform of labour markets. Removing barriers to the completion of the single market remains crucial, but the role of small firms in creating jobs is now recognised as central, as is the need to create a simpler regulatory and administrative environment for business. Those are all ideas which we have promoted and to which we can subscribe whole-heartedly.
There were three points at the heart of our discussions. First, we need an adaptable and skilled work force responsive to economic change. The emphasis must be on education, skills, technology, and an active employment service. We need flexibility, in the sense not of hire and fire management, but of businesses and employees being able to respond to new and changing economic conditions.
Secondly, we need entrepreneurship, especially in small businesses. That is where many of the new jobs that we need must come from, and we must nurture the sector.
Thirdly, we must tackle structural unemployment. That cannot be lowered simply by demand management. We want neither laissez-faire nor old-style state intervention, but targeted measures specifically directed at the long-term and young unemployed.
Under adaptability, the Council endorsed the idea of modernising work organisation, including flexible working arrangements to help companies to be both productive and competitive. In an important step forward, it also agreed to examine any new regulations, to make sure that they reduce barriers to employment and help labour markets adapt to structural economic changes. That was a particular initiative of ours.
Under entrepreneurship, the focus was the vital role of small and medium-sized enterprises. It was agreed that member states should make starting and running businesses easier by reducing the overhead costs and administrative burdens, in particular those of taking on extra staff. More widely, it was agreed that taxation and benefit systems should be made more employment-friendly; for example, by reducing the tax burden on both labour and other non-wage labour costs, where they are at levels that hinder job creation. Some countries are keen to consider the reduction of VAT on labour-intensive services not exposed to cross-border competition.
To tackle structural unemployment, the Council agreed an approach based on employability. There should be specific commitments to improve the ability of individuals to get and retain jobs, with special emphasis on youth and long-term unemployment. In particular, all member states undertook to offer a fresh start, in terms of training or similar measures, to all young people unemployed for six months, and to all adults unemployed for 12 months. A specific target of 20 per cent. was set for the number of unemployed in total benefiting from active measures to improve their employability. There was also extra emphasis on ensuring that young people do not leave the school system too early and inadequately equipped for the jobs market.
The Council also emphasised the importance of equal opportunities. In particular, there should be commitments aimed at tackling gender inequality, making it easier for parents to reconcile work and family life, and addressing the problems of the disabled in the workplace.
The guidelines setting out those practical objectives and commitments in more detail will be adopted by the end of the year. It will then be for member states to prepare national action plans on how they intend converting them into action. The plans will be subject to scrutiny by other partners. Each member state will be able to apply them in accordance with national circumstances but will be expected to address all the objectives in one way or another. We will review progress first at the Cardiff European Council in June.
The Luxembourg Council also welcomed extra mobilisation of the resources of the European investment bank to improve economic performance. One billion ecu from the bank's reserves will be used over three years to finance new initiatives to help high-tech small and medium-sized businesses: 125 million ecu of that has already been earmarked for a new European technology facility. The EIB is also starting to lend in the health, education and environment sectors, and is stepping up its support for trans-European network projects.
In addition, the European Council agreed in principle to redeploy 450 million ecu from the existing European budget over three years to help job creation, again particularly supporting innovative and job-creating small and medium-sized enterprises.
Those financial measures will be helpful, but, of course, they play only a supporting role: reform of labour and product markets is the real key to improving Europe's employment performance.
The jobs summit marks Europe's commitment to a new approach to create jobs and security for the future—not the old-fashioned free-for-all resulting in widespread social exclusion, nor loading more costs and regulations


onto business, but a third way: investing in people, in their skills, in small businesses, and setting a stable long-term framework for business and industry to plan for the future and create jobs. Education and training are the keys. The so-called European social model is being refocused, based on a modern approach of reform, flexibility and investment in people. We aim to involve both sides of industry fully in that approach.
We will use the UK presidency next year to ensure that this is carried through in order to make a real difference to employment, employability and social inclusion. Luxembourg agreed an approach for the long term. Effective follow-up is vital and will happen.
At Amsterdam, we showed how a united British Government with a clear direction in Europe could make Britain's voice heard. At Luxembourg, we showed how a constructive British approach could result in a new direction on tackling unemployment; an approach based on competitiveness, employability and reform, combining job creation with a fair and cohesive society.
We recognised at a European level the terrible personal damage which occurs each time an individual who is willing and anxious to find work is still unable to do so through no fault of his or her own. That is why this Labour Government are working for a Europe that is working for jobs. This approach is right for Britain, right for Europe and right for the people of Europe.

Mr. William Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. The Opposition welcome the concept of a European summit focused wholly on jobs, and we welcome the recognition that Europe should aim for flexible labour markets responsive to economic change.
Did the Prime Minister describe the achievements of the British people over the past 18 years, which have led to an unemployment rate way below the European average? Does he agree that there is a huge amount to be learned from the UK experience over the past 18 years, and that those who opposed the measures that we took must now be regretting it?
We agree with the sentiments expressed at the summit and with many of the objectives. However, does the Prime Minister understand that we are entitled to be a little suspicious of a summit which both the British and French Governments claim as a triumph, when they arrived with completely different agendas? Can he give more evidence that other countries will adopt more flexible labour market policies? What specific measures does he expect them to adopt? Can he give any evidence that he is committed to flexible labour market policies, given the contrast between the guidelines to which he signed up and the policies that he is pursuing at home?
The Prime Minister talked about reducing barriers to employment, and we all agree with that. How can we square that with what the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry said last week, when advocating the minimum wage at its most onerous? Only last Thursday, the Minister said
There will be no sectoral, regional or company derogations and it will be available from day one of employment."—[Official Report, 20 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 441.]
Which will the Prime Minister choose—Government policy or the European guidelines?
The Prime Minister talked about entrepreneurship, and we all agree with that. How does he square that with signing up to the social chapter, making him unable to stop new burdens being imposed on small businesses by extending works councils to them? Which will he choose—the policy or the guidelines? The summit guidelines talked about
making the taxation system more employment friendly
and we all agree with that. Does the Prime Minister realise that companies now have to pay higher contributions because of the new tax on their pension funds imposed by the Chancellor? Which will he choose—the policy or the guidelines?
The summit guidelines finished with a call to
promote the integration of people with disabilities into working life
and I particularly welcome that sentiment. However, are not the Government trying to cut benefits for disabled people, which often give them the help that they need to be independent and to go to work? Which will the Prime Minister choose—his policy or the European guidelines?
How convinced is the Prime Minister that other countries will follow the spirit of the guidelines when there is precious little evidence that he himself will do so?
The presidency conclusions call for clear objectives for each country. Can the Prime Minister tell us what the objectives for Britain will be? Will he endorse the target set by the Minister for employment that the current trend rate of decline in unemployment should improve further?
Can the Prime Minister explain some of the language used in the presidency conclusions? What has he agreed to in signing up to the idea of bringing an end to unfair tax competition? What does this mean for British companies? What has he agreed to in signing up to the creation of an expert working party to guard against the economic effects of industrial change? What has he agreed to in signing up to a six-monthly meeting of social partners and Heads of Government before European Council meetings? Does he expect that to lift burdens on business?
The Prime Minister says that new regulations will be examined to make sure they help labour markets adapt. What about looking at all the old regulations across the continent which have kept millions out of work?
The Prime Minister talks of national plans being subject to scrutiny by other partners. Does that mean that other countries will be able to interfere in our employment policies, or does he optimistically assume that it will only be us interfering in theirs?
Will the Prime Minister confirm that the idea of this summit originated with the French Government's worries that economic and monetary union could make their serious jobs problems even worse? Can he confirm that there is a widespread fear in Europe that a single currency could bring more unemployment in the next few years? Does he believe that all the advocates of a single currency in the near future are also committed to the essential corollary of making labour markets more flexible?
In summary, we agree with the objective of ending the old ways of state intervention, corporatism and over-burdensome regulation for companies, but does the Prime Minister realise that many people will find it hard to understand how that fits with signing the social chapter,


compulsory union recognition, adopting the employment chapter and bringing in the minimum wage, all of which are more likely to destroy jobs than to create them?

The Prime Minister: All I can say is, thank goodness the right hon. Gentleman was not negotiating for us at the employment summit. He and his colleagues still have absolutely no idea why they lost the general election. They have no idea why one of their former hon. Friends is now sitting on the Government side. They have totally lost touch with mainstream, one-nation values, which people believe now reside in the Labour party, not the Conservative party.
I shall deal with the points that the right hon. Gentleman made. First, he said that he supported the summit. Before the election, the Conservatives opposed the new employment chapter under which the summit was held. They opposed the very idea of this summit, which was not a French idea: actually, it was a British idea which came from the Government.
Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman examines the figures, he will see that we have problems with long-term and youth unemployment. They are being addressed by the new deal for the young and long-term unemployed, which was also opposed by the Conservative party. We inherited a situation in which 20 per cent. of non-pensioner households with people of working age were without work. That it is precisely why it is important that we are not complacent about this problem from Britain's perspective, but realise that we still have a lot to do.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman said that no specific proposals were made. There are specific proposals, not just in the guidelines for the long-term and youth unemployed, but in the 1 billion ecu programme for small and medium-sized enterprises and the 400 million ecu programme for specific job and skills programmes for the unemployed.
Fourthly, the right hon. Gentleman gave us the usual litany about the social chapter and asked how it can be squared with the guidelines. It can be squared very easily. Most people in Europe—indeed, most sensible people in the world—do not believe that there is anything inconsistent in having a highly effective, efficient work force and treating people with minimum standards of fairness. Unlike the Conservative party, they do not have a problem with that. The social chapter has two parts so far: the first allows companies that operate Europewide to consult their work force, and the second gives unpaid, parental leave to people who have just had a birth in the family. Why it is thought those measures are so terrible and will hamper British industry, I do not know. As far as I am aware, business is perfectly happy with them.
As for disability benefit cuts, it was the former Government who undermined disability benefit provision, not us.
On unfair tax competition, the right hon. Gentleman has again got it wrong. Discussion has been going on for a long time—under the previous Administration as well as ours—to try to prevent specific benefits from being given to non-resident companies in the tax treatment of those companies in particular countries. British companies are victims of that problem, rather than perpetrators, so it is

in our interest to be part of those discussions. All that is being suggested is that a Europewide code of conduct should be drawn up: it is not a proposal for legislation.

Mr. Nick Gibb: It is the same thing.

The Prime Minister: It is not the same thing—it is different.
Finally, on the national action plans that each country is supposed to draw up, we have been at the forefront because the whole purpose of what we are trying to achieve is to refocus attention in Europe away from some of the older methods of assisting job creation and on to the things that will make people more employable in today's labour markets, in particular education in skills and technology and help for small businesses. That is precisely the agenda of the Government here at home. It helps us if that is the agenda abroad as well. I must point out to the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends that there is a tremendous opportunity for Britain to get that agenda accepted at the moment, but it will be accepted only if it is advanced constructively and sensibly.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: One of the omissions from the jobs summit was the job-creation significance of north American and far eastern investment in Europe's regional development areas. Therefore, was there a special study at the summit of the Irish Republic's tremendous success in 1996, when it won more new green-field, inward investment projects than all the United Kingdom's assisted areas put together, by an emphasis on the quality of its labour force and environment and not on low wages and deregulated labour markets?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that we have received a lot of inward investment here and we continue to do so. However, he is entirely right in that we do not want people to come here for reasons of low wages and, by and large, that is not why they are coming. They want to come here. If we can show that we have an educated and skilled work force that is adaptable to the forces of economic change and if we can make the improvements in our education and welfare systems that the Government are undertaking, we can attract more inward investment to this country and not less.

Mr. A. J. Beith: While welcoming the involvement of the European investment bank in new lending and the emphasis on small business, labour market flexibility and a genuine internal market, may I ask when we will get the comparable statistics of which the statement speaks, so that we can compare properly unemployment figures in our and neighbouring countries, bearing in mind what the previous Government did to the employment figures?
Does the Prime Minister recognise that regional funds will continue to be vital to the older industrial areas, such as the coal mining and textile areas in Britain, if we are to create jobs there and that the amount of increased investment that we will need in education and training is beyond anything that has been committed so far?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman fully support the wording in the presidential statement, for which 1 presume he is also responsible, that proceeding to the third stage of economic and monetary union will indeed be conducive to stability, growth and employment?

The Prime Minister: In relation to the figures given and to comparable figures, the national action plans should provide some basis for proper comparison, although I agree that there is a longer-term problem in that statistics are compiled in different ways in the individual countries. There is a separate European initiative to bring those statistics into line with one another, which is on-going, as they say. In due course, we should get a better series of comparable statistics than those we have.
On industrial restructuring, there is a very different approach here, which is to accept that there will be restructuring in Europe. Obviously there can be a debate about how far monetary union will be conducive to economic stability, but the one thing that people are sure about is that with a single currency in Europe there will undoubtedly be enormous transparency of costs. That will of itself force an enormous amount of restructuring. The approach set out here is not to try to ward off that restructuring, but instead to cope with it by bringing new investment into the areas where it is taking place and ensuring that we have the measures in place for the long-term unemployed in particular, who will require retraining in the longer term.
As for education and investment, I do not want to go over what we say at every Question Time on Wednesday, but we are putting a substantial additional sum of money into our schools next year with the school repairs programme of £1.3 billion. If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for pointing it out once again, that is more money than the Liberal Democrats asked for before the election.

Mr. TamDalyell: Did any of the Prime Minister's European colleagues offer so much as a scintilla of regret that we were not joining the single currency in 1999?

The Prime Minister: I have to say that it was not a subject discussed by us at the meeting.

Mr. James Paice: To what does the Prime Minister attribute the fall in British unemployment?

Hon. Members: A Labour Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes. It is correct that British unemployment has come down, though I have to say that there are still other countries in Europe that are committed to the social chapter. Indeed, they have a minimum wage and have lower unemployment rates than in Britain. We have always said that we must focus on those households with people of non-pensioner age which have nobody working. That is why I say that we still have a long way to go in this country, which is why we have introduced the new deal for the unemployed.

Ms Diane Abbott: If the Prime Minister supports one of the

aims of the jobs summit, which is to encourage previously excluded groups to go back to work, why are the Government introducing cuts in child benefit to single mothers, proposed by the Conservatives when they were in government? Because they affect single mothers who are out of work, as well as those who are in work, they will tend to act as a disincentive to their returning to work.

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that Conservative Members are in a position to put those questions to us, as they were the ones who introduced the benefit cuts. If my hon. Friend looks at the Budget proposals put forward by the Chancellor in July, she will see that single parents are given specific additional help with child care to help them find work. Measures are being put in place to take people off benefit and into work. However, it is extremely important that we keep within the tough spending guidelines that we have set, because they are right. Whatever irresponsibility may have occurred on the part of the previous Government, it does not occur here.

Mrs. Angela Browning: If the Prime Minister thinks that the minimum wage has nothing to do with unemployment figures, to what does he attribute the high youth unemployment in France and particularly in Spain, where it is nearly 40 per cent? Does he think that the minimum wage has nothing whatever to do with unemployment?

The Prime Minister: If one looks at France, for example, a criticism that we have made is that if the minimum wage is applied in full, even to young people in training, it can cause problems for young people. That is why we have said that that will not happen here. There are many countries with lower unemployment rates than Britain that have minimum wages. Austria, the Netherlands and the United States of America all have minimum wages but lower unemployment rates than Britain. It is important to introduce a minimum wage sensibly and make it part of a general system of reform, so that this country does not end up, as we did under the previous Government, spending £3 billion a year through family credit subsidising low pay. That is not a sensible use of public resources. It is far better to introduce a proper minimum wage and ensure that people are paid at the proper rate for the job.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of what has been happening in the Asian economies in the past few months and particularly the past few days, we want to hear no lectures of the kind that we heard constantly from the last Government about using undiluted market forces to resolve the problems of the economy and particularly jobs? Many areas of Britain—some 20 or 30 in total— used to have old smokestack industries that were closed by the Tory Government, who are still downsizing the Tory party. Even if there were an economic upturn over and above what is happening today, there is a legacy in each of those areas: the last five or six years of pit closures meant that hardly a single miner had another job to go to, and the social fabric is in decay. We need to deal with those issues, not by means of a European job summit but through old-fashioned intervention from this Labour


Government to make sure that those areas and pit villages, where as many as 40 per cent. of people are unemployed, have a chance to work again.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Inevitably, no matter how well the economy is doing in general terms, some areas will be left behind by industrial restructuring and change. That is why the jobs summit focused specifically, as a separate item almost, on those who will be long-term unemployed and who cannot get back into work simply because of the general upturn in economic circumstances. Of course, that is why we have the welfare to work new deal programme here. It is precisely to help to tackle some of those pockets of structural long-term and youth unemployment. It is precisely by investing in their skills and through additional resources to improve the education system that we shall give those people a better chance and a better opportunity.
That is what I would call the third way. It is not old-style intervention, but it is intervention and a recognition that markets fail. We should live in a market economy and we want a dynamic market economy, but in some areas the market will fail. One of the things that mark out the Government from their predecessor is that we recognise that, and are prepared to intervene where that is necessary.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Was there any consideration at the summit of the issue of structural funds? They have been extremely important in areas such as mine, which benefits from objective 1 and objective 5b in the creation of employment. What is the Government's attitude to the continuation of structural funds and will the Prime Minister guarantee that this matter will at least be discussed in Cardiff in June?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. Paragraph 34 of the European Council's conclusions deals with structural funds. In essence, it says that it is important that we reform those structural funds; that will be necessary as part of the process of enlargement and to make sure that the money goes to the areas in which it is really needed. It is also important to recognise that it made a clear commitment in principle to continuing the basis of structural funds for the future.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: In welcoming the Prime Minister's statement, may I ask whether he agrees that, both in philosophy and in specific direction, the summit is tied in very much in accord with the Government's policies? Will he ask his Ministers at European level and specifically at Government level to take into account the question of flexibility of seasonal employment, which is a major issue in my constituency and in many others?

The Prime Minister: I think that people recognise that seasonal employment, particularly in areas such as the one that my hon. Friend represents, is a particular subject which needs care and attention. Of course he is right to say that the measures that we have outlined at the European summit chime in very much with the Government's priorities both in terms of the new deal for

the long-term and young unemployed, and in the treatment of small businesses. This Government have cut corporation tax and taxation on small businesses to their lowest ever level. That is precisely the right direction for Europe to go as well.

Mr. Eric Forth: The Prime Minister has rightly emphasised the importance of reducing the cost burden on business, and particularly on small and medium-sized businesses. Will he remind the House how he thinks that that objective will be served by, for example, the Chancellor's recent measures on pensions, which are bound to increase the cost burden on businesses? The minimum wage, if it is to have the effect that the Prime Minister and the Government want to claim in social terms, must surely also have the effect of increasing business costs.

The Prime Minister: As I have just said, it was this Government who cut corporation tax for business and particularly for small businesses. In July, we took the measures that were necessary to bring the structural budget deficit under control. We did that because the worst thing that could happen for business and in particular for small businesses is to go through an economic cycle of boom and bust as has happened many times in the past. I know from the conversations that I had with small businesses at the end of the 1980s and in the early 1990s, that the worst thing that happened to them was that they were plunged from a boom into a deeper recession than they had ever known. Many of them went out of business. Stability for them and prudence in public finances—prudent monetary policy—are absolutely essential.
As for the minimum wage, I think that many small businesses will welcome the fact that they will compete on the basis of some minimum standards of fairness. Of course it must be set at a proper and sensible level, but if it is set at that level we shall find, as people in the United States and elsewhere find, that it is of assistance to businesses, not a burden on them.

Mr. John Hutton: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the sensible measures that were agreed at the jobs summit in Luxembourg, but does he agree that it is a matter of regret that the Opposition have expressed their continuing opposition to improvements in the social dialogue between employers and employees in the European Union?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with that entirely. Raucous scorn greets any mention of discussing things with the social partners—with employers and unions. I should have thought that it was perfectly sensible that, before a European summit on jobs, we discuss with both sides of industry how this programme should be carried through. Why that is going to be detrimental to the interests of the European economy, I do not know. What is surely important is that, if we are making structural change in Europe, we try to take both sides of industry with us, that we listen to their concerns about some of the costs and burdens that they face, and that we consider


how we might remove them. Our meeting with employers and unions before the summit was constructive and we will meet them again before our summit in Cardiff.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the minimum wage rate is in the United States and the reasons why the Clinton Administration have kept it so low that it is almost irrelevant?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not believe that that is true at all. Indeed, before the last presidential election, there was agreement even between the republicans and the democrats to raise the minimum wage. If the hon. Gentleman considers the recent work that has come out of the United States, he will find that most people believe that having some form of minimum wage assists the way in which the labour market functions. I am sorry to say to Conservative Members that they will be left behind on this issue as they have been on many others.

Mr. Barry Jones: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the jobs summit discussed the renewed challenge by the Boeing corporation to the European Airbus consortium? Is it possible for him to say when the Government will decide on the application by British Aerospace for launch aid on a new version of the A340? May I tell him that 2,800 of my constituents make the wings for Airbus aircraft, and hope that the application might go forward and that jobs are not exported abroad?

The Prime Minister: Of course the application for launch aid must be considered in the normal way and I would not want to comment on that at this stage. But our support for the Airbus project is well known and total. We believe that Britain has an important role to play in that, but, of course, all applications for launch aid must go through the normal business of determining whether they meet the criteria. We welcome those skilled jobs and the work by the British work force in relation to Airbus and of course we will do everything that we can to keep them.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the process of artificial convergence to achieve the criteria for establishing a single currency within certain core countries in the European Union has benefited employment? Is it not true that, on the evidence, the opposite seems to be the case? This winter, the federal German republic will have unemployment of probably 5 million and Spain's unemployment rate is at 20 per cent. In this country, is it not true that an independent central bank has masterminded four out of the five interest rate increases that have taken place under this Administration?

The Prime Minister: No, I cannot agree with that. Interest rates have had to go up since the election. They should have gone up before the election. That was the clear and obvious advice because an incipient inflation problem was back in the system again. The last thing that we should do is repeat the mistakes at the end of the 1980s and in the early 1990s, when, under Tory boom-and-bust policies, interest rates went to 15 per cent. and stayed there for almost a year. We have to avoid that. The best way of doing so and the best way for this country's future

is to ensure that interest rate decisions are taken not on a political, short-term basis, but on a genuine assessment of the right monetary policy for this country.
In relation to convergence in the rest of Europe, of course other countries would dispute what the hon. Gentleman has said. All I can say is that, at present, their interest rate and inflation rate performance is low. Britain is in a different stage of the economic cycle and in a different position. That is one of the reasons for our position on monetary union, but each country has to decide what is in its best interest.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Did the jobs summit deal with the paradox of investment: it is required to create new jobs, but it can, on occasions, get rid of old jobs? It is needed for competitive purposes, but, unless it takes place within a framework of intervention, there will be problems about whether the investment delivers more jobs in the long run. [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend has said is sensible, contrary to what Conservative Members think. It is important that we recognise that we need high levels of investment, which is precisely why we want a stable long-term economic strategy, both for this country and for Europe. Obviously, some of that investment—if it is in new technology, for example—can displace jobs. The answer is not to fail to put in the new technology; it is to focus, as the employment summit did, precisely on what is needed: reskilling, better education, lifelong learning and ensuring that when people do become unemployed they have the chance to get a fresh job. I should have thought that that was a sensible approach.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Can the Prime Minister say whether non-wage labour costs will increase under his Government?

The Prime Minister: We have made a specific commitment here to try to keep them as low as possible, and that is precisely what we will do.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Does my right hon. Friend share my feeling of dismay that when he comes to the House to make a statement about what this Government and other Governments in Europe are doing to create job opportunities for young unemployed people, the Opposition resort to howls of derision and jeers? Does he agree that every time an hon. Member crosses the Floor of the House from the Opposition side to our Benches, he leaves behind a Tory rump both leaner and meaner?
Does my right hon. Friend further agree that an economy the size of Europe has the potential to be as successful an engine for creating jobs as the economy of the United States of America, which, under President Clinton and with a minimum wage, has created so very many more jobs than have been created in Europe, with Europe not pulling together? Now that we are pulling together, will we see the benefits in Europe?

The Prime Minister:: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his description of what happens with the Opposition. I find it extraordinary that they should disparage the idea of a European jobs summit that focuses on some of the issues of long-term youth unemployment. If they look at the figures, they will realise that it is not


true that Britain is miles ahead of everyone else. There are countries with lower rates of long-term unemployment, with lower rates of youth unemployment and with lower overall rates of unemployment. It is true that the measures that we take will improve that position enormously, but it is also true that there is a long way that we need to go.
It is tremendously important that we are in Europe, able to play a constructive role and able to provide leadership and direction, not just for our own country, but for Europe. The single market is tremendously important for British business and British jobs. It is in our interests to be able to complete that single market and to be able to play a leading role and influence the rest of Europe in our own direction—but we cannot do that if the country is represented by people who simply continue shrilly and irrelevantly to shout against Europe rather than get in and make it work.

Mr. Michael Fallon: How can the Prime Minister boast in Luxembourg about ending burdensome regulation when he is sentencing British companies to compulsory new laws under the social chapter? Does his earlier answer suggest that neither of the existing directives nor any of the four proposed directives under the social chapter will impose any cost on British business?

The Prime Minister: What the directives do is allow a perfectly fair framework of employment regulations in this country.

Mr. Fallon: They impose costs.

The Prime Minister: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the unpaid parental leave directive, which gives people a bit of unpaid parental leave, will destroy British industry? The hon. Gentleman also refers to a directive that allows consultation with people in companies with 1,000 or more employees operating on a Europewide basis. Before the election, when the Conservative Government had opted out of the social chapter, British companies were joining it because they found it sensible to do so. I remember that, during the election campaign, the hon. Member and other Conservative Members said that if we signed the social chapter 500,000 jobs would leave Britain. That was nonsense. However, he and his hon. Friends continue to say that with all the certainty and conviction of mediaeval school men, which is precisely what they are becoming.

Dr. Howard Stoate: Will my right hon. Friend agree with me that the new Labour Government's attitude towards training and education will help to inspire employers to create the 50,000 new jobs expected in Kent's Thamesside, which includes my constituency?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that is absolutely right. By focusing on raising education standards, we raise the value of human capital, thereby raising the performance of the overall economy.

Mr. David Prior: Does the Prime Minister accept that joining a European single currency will inevitably lead to high levels of regional unemployment? Was that discussed at the summit?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that. It will depend on whether a single currency is successful. If it is successful, I do not believe that what the hon. Gentleman describes will occur.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Prime Minister. We will bring the statement to an end now.

British Board of Film Classification

Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,
 the conduct of the British Board of Film Classification.
I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, and for the support of the hon. Members for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and of some Conservative Members.
Since 1984, the BBFC has had absolute power to determine which videos are or are not legal to watch in the United Kingdom, yet it is accountable to no one, other than furnishing the occasional opaque and bland report. Lately, its director, James Ferman, has passed a series of extremely violent and unpleasant videos, including one depicting people gaining sexual gratification from serious motor accidents. Certification for that film was given against the advice of the child psychologist whom the board itself had consulted.
It has been widely leaked that, as a consequence of the passing of such films, the Home Secretary is contemplating sensible measures to appoint a stronger chairman to replace Lord Harewood and to take action to make the organisation more accountable.
I ask for a debate today because it appears that Mr. Ferman and his cronies are using what may be their last few weeks of freedom to rush through certification of a series of films that a Customs official has described as "hard-core pornography", undermining Government action to prevent pornography.
This is not simply a matter of taste. Such films are widely used by paedophiles not only to cultivate their own tastes but to corrupt children. As I have one of the United Kingdom's best special investigation units in my local police force, I am very conscious of that fact. Once a video has been classified as acceptable, we have removed the statutory power to prevent it from being shown.
The British Board of Film Classification exists to protect vulnerable people, particularly children, from becoming victims of those who swallow a diet of mindless violence and filth. The board is manifestly failing in its duty. The Government need quickly to appoint a new chairman, and Parliament needs an urgent debate on the matter.

Madam Speaker: I have listened very carefully to what has been said, and I have to give my decision without stating a reason. I do not consider that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24. I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.

Orders of the Day — Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today is the second day of the Bill's Committee stage, as you—

Madam Speaker: Order. If this is a point of order on the Committee stage, it is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Hughes: It deals with the Bill's Report stage and Third Reading.
Today is the Bill's Committee stage. At last Thursday's business questions, the Leader of the House, in the conventional way, announced this week's business. She said that, this Wednesday, the Bill would have its Third Reading. No provision has been made for a Report stage. No one can know—not even the Government, in their arrogance, can presume—that no amendments will be agreed in Committee.
I therefore ask you, Madam Speaker, to make it absolutely clear that the House is entirely free to amend the Bill in Committee; that, if it is amended, there will be a Report stage; that time will have to be found for the Report stage; and that time will have be found to table amendments between the end of the Committee stage and the Report stage.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Hon. Members must be given ample opportunity to table further amendments on Report, if we have a Report stage. That is the normal way to proceed, and it will be the way that we deal with this Bill.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 19 November.]

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

REFERENDUM

Amendment moved [19 November]: No. 15, page 1, line 9, leave out 'an elected assembly' and insert

'an assembly of leaders of London boroughs'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendmenty: No. 16, page 1, line 10, leave out 'separately' and insert 'directly'.
No. 17, in schedule, page 6, line 4, leave out 'an' and insert 'a directly'.
No. 28, in schedule, page 6, line 4, leave out 'a separately elected assembly' and insert
'an assembly of leaders of London boroughs'.

Mr. Ottaway: Conservative Members wish to associate themselves with the comments by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
The amendment would ensure that, in the referendum, we were voting for an assembly of borough leaders rather than for the directly elected assembly proposed by the Government. Our objections to the directly elected assembly are many, the first being that there would be no formal links between the boroughs and the authority. The Minister for London and Construction has several times said that there would be no such links. Those of us who remember the old Greater London council know that an anti-borough culture persisted throughout the life of that organisation, but it worked both ways—the boroughs were hostile to the GLC, too. None of us felt that that was conducive to the effective operation of local government.
Our second objection to a directly elected assembly is the resentment that the idea is currently creating among the boroughs. It is clear from the briefest scrutiny of the Green Paper that there will be an erosion of the boroughs' powers.
Having read the Green Paper, I calculate that there are no fewer than 15 points where the boroughs' powers will be eroded, despite the denials made before the election— and, indeed, since. There are, in fact, four main areas where those powers will be eroded—planning, transport, waste management and finance. Individually, they may be small items, but collectively, they add up to significant dangers for the boroughs, and represent an opportunity for two large secretariats to be established—one for the mayor and one for the assembly.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): indicated dissent.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister shakes his head, but if we have the sort of intrusion into the boroughs' powers outlined in the Green Paper, either we shall have a highly intelligent load of assemblymen who are capable of doing everything on their own without any secretarial back-up— if that is the case, we shall see pigs flying down Whitehall—or there will have to be a large secretariat.
Our third objection is that the proposals will result in rather oddball jobs for the assemblymen. These assemblymen will have no borough links, and that will mean nothing but trouble. Their only job will be to hang around city hall and veto the mayor. The only way that they can get into the headlines will be to cause trouble. After a while, they will realise that if they go on saying yes to the mayor, their insignificant lives will continue to be insignificant; but if they say no, on will go the television lights, out will come the notepaper and pads, and pencils will grind away. If the assemblymen have no borough links, the assembly will be nothing more than a talking shop, and it will lead to conflict, deadlock and indecision.
Let there be no doubt; the Conservatives want an assembly. It is wrong to suggest that our proposed assembly of borough leaders is not an assembly. We accept that if there is to be a mayor, it is essential to hold him to account. We believe that that will be best done through an assembly of borough leaders. We do not want a Greater London council mark II, or a slimmed-down version. We want an assembly of people with local knowledge at the heart of decision making—people who understand local issues and can represent them in London's authority. They work with their chief executive every day, solve borough problems, and deal with matters that affect people at a local level.
The great advantage is that an assembly of borough leaders would form a bridge between the mayor and the boroughs. A directly elected assembly would be a barrier between the mayor and the boroughs. That is at the heart of our objection.
An assembly of borough leaders would be more skilled, would have more talent, would be cheaper, would avoid the bureaucratic costs and secretariats that I have described, and, above all, would avoid the anti-borough culture that concerns us. It would strengthen links with the local community.
The Minister has given us a clue that he does not agree with our proposals. The leader in The Times on 30 July said
Political power must be placed with the Mayor. The functions of the Greater London Authority should be two-fold: an open forum for the proper accountability of the chief executive and a facilitator of co-operation between the Mayor and the boroughs. That would be best achieved through an indirectly elected entity consisting of the 32 borough council leaders and the Corporation of London. This arrangement would ensure the unique mandate of the mayor and provide a direct link"—
a direct link—
between the two most significant aspects of London's administration.
I could not put it better myself.
The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said on an earlier amendment that we have had one or two lines from the Minister and his colleagues, but there has been no explanation why our proposal is not right. The majority of London councils are controlled by the Labour party. The Minister may not trust them to do a good job, but that situation will not continue for ever. Come the local elections next May, there will probably be a significant change in the composition of our proposed assembly. The Minister must convince the House why our proposal is not better than his.
Not surprisingly, the Minister could not resist responding to the editor of The Times. He said:
In these circumstances we are absolutely convinced that the mayor must be held to account. This can be best done by an elected body with specific powers to scrutinise what the mayor proposes and does.
There again are the words "can be best done", without any explanation. Explaining why he does not think that our proposals will work and why the editor of The Times— and the editor of The Daily Telegraph, for that matter— is wrong, the Minister goes on
Each leader would, quite rightly, see his or her first loyalty as fighting for his or her own patch rather than the wider interests of London as a whole.
That sums it up. The Minister cannot stand the thought of someone fighting for his or her own patch. It also confirms our long-held suspicion. Although the Minister said on Second Reading that he had an open mind on the electoral system to be used, he has already decided on one. First past the post would allow people to fight for their own patch.
The Minister is, in effect, saying that he wants to sever the constituency links so that people think strategically. He has, however, created a hurdle for himself, because no one will be able to fight for his or her own patch. Labour is not going that far, even in Scotland or Wales.
4.30 pm
What message does the Government's proposal send to voters? The Green Paper makes it clear that the proposed London transport authority will have a hands-on role with regard to roads. I come back to an example I gave the Minister on Second Reading. I believe that the Coulsdon bypass is important. I have written to the Minister for Transport in London, and she has replied. She told me, through her noble Friend the Minister for Roads, that I was one of about 150 people who had written in a similar vein. In fact, so many people have written that we are having a job lot meeting in a few days' time, when we can make our points together. I am fighting for that bypass on behalf of my constituents. In future, that job will be handed to the LTA. Who will fight for that road?
I shall not be able to fight for the road, because I shall not be a member of the LTA. Local councillors will not be able to fight for it because they will have no link with the LTA. The assemblymen on the LTA will not be able to fight for the road, because they will not be allowed to fight for their own patch. The lobbying will be done by public relations firms, which means that it is the people with the most money who will win.

Mr. Raynsford: We shall see about that.

Mr. Ottaway: In that case, there will be no lobbying for the Coulsdon bypass. What is the point of an authority such as that proposed in the Bill? The Minister is saying to prospective assembly members, "Once you have been voted in, we do not want to hear from you, because there will be no fighting for your own patch and local views will not be welcome."
There is no doubt that our proposals for an assembly have considerable merit. They also have some support inside the London Labour party. One of the joys of being in opposition is the brown envelope that suddenly turns up. I have here an extract from a report of a meeting of the Greater London Labour party executive, which says:
For the London executive, the discussion has been going on for a couple of years, for others, less. But we keep coming up with the wrong answer: No to a directly elected mayor. It appears that Londoners are a little dim. Ask them two separate questions ('Do you want an elected assembly?' and 'Do you want a directly elected mayor?') and they come over all faint. According to our leaders"—
I can only assume that that means Ministers—
if we ask two questions we are likely to end up with a mayor but no assembly.
That is no surprise, but this is the first news we have had that it is the view of the Greater London Labour party executive.

Mr. Raynsford: It is not.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister may say that it is not. The report continues
The Chair Jim Fitzpatrick MP manipulated the meeting shamelessly to avoid even indicative votes.
That is the way in which the Labour party has been considering the proposals. We know that there is deep-rooted support for a London assembly, and I urge the Committee to support the amendments.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I want to stick to the detail of amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
I believe that they have merit, in that they will clarify to the electorate and make certain in statute a phraseology that will be appropriate for the purpose of establishing a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly in separate elections. The manner of election could not then be altered by the White Paper, or by the Government changing their mind after the passage of the Bill.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) his strong desire for an indirectly elected mayor drawn from the ranks of the assemblymen. If, as amendment No. 16 seeks, a directly elected mayor were written into the phraseology of the Bill, that could not happen.
There is a strong body of opinion within the Labour movement in London, particularly in municipal circles, for the mayoralty to be indirectly elected and drawn from the ranks of the assemblymen. In that way, the assembly would have much more control over who would be appointed to the job. He or she would be in essence one of them, sharing the same culture and the same roots in local government within the Labour movement in London.
It is also exceedingly important that the electorate should know that the assemblymen would be directly elected. In that respect, I take a slightly different view from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), but not as regards objectives.
Like my hon. Friend and others on the Opposition Front Bench, I believe passionately in the importance of ensuring that borough opinion is represented on the assembly in the most effective manner possible. After all, Londoners identify with their boroughs. Traditionally, they draw most of their services from and elect their councillors for their boroughs, and, to a greater or lesser extent, there is a geographical, social and economic identity within a borough boundary.
In promoting the Bill, the Labour party seeks to move away from the traditional roots that are of the essence of our local democracy in London. We are led to believe that there may not even be constituencies, or, if there are, that they will be very large and not in any sense conterminous with the boroughs. They will be based on the prospective European Parliament constituencies within London, which encompass much greater areas.
I would argue that the assemblymen will require different personal qualities from those necessary for a borough leader. Assemblymen will be scrutineers. They will not need the talent, aptitude and background of executive action—the qualities necessary for an effective borough leader. The better they do their job on the assembly at the Middlesex Guildhall or wherever, the more time they will spend scrutinising the mayor's budget and challenging and testing his programmes, his policies and his projects for London.
It would be better if the assemblymen were directly responsible to the electors in their boroughs in exercising that scrutineering function. Furthermore, it would be much more appropriate if their term of office exactly coincided with that of the mayor—which could not happen if they were indirectly elected. In fact, halfway through the term of a particular borough representative on the London assembly, a borough leader could find himself out of office by virtue of a local borough election.
In respect of continuity and from a practical perspective, borough leaders are exceedingly busy people. Their primary duty is managing a very complicated

municipal operation on behalf of their electors. Most of them also have other careers. They are not full-time, paid politicians, as are many right hon. and hon. Members, and certainly Members of the European Parliament. The additional burden of travelling large distances across London to attend assembly meetings will not always be either easy or possible to fit in with the borough leaders' primary responsibility to their borough councils and electors.
If borough leaders fulfil poorly their responsibilities as scrutineers of and checks on the executive power of the mayor, their borough electors should be able to replace them or place some sanction on them. If they are merely indirectly representative of their boroughs—borough leaders seconded from their primary purpose of fulfilling a role on the assembly—and fulfil the role badly, it will be much harder for their electors to exercise any sanction on them, especially if they fulfil their primary responsibility of running their own borough well.
I whole-heartedly support my hon. Friends' strong determination to make absolutely sure that the voice of the boroughs is heard because that is what matters to Londoners. The concerns of my electors in west London and people in Hillingdon are utterly different from those in the City or the east end.
Under the electoral arrangements proposed by the Opposition, there is no way of ensuring that local interests are represented directly on the assembly and have an effect on the policies being promulgated and enacted by the mayor. There is much greater likelihood of ensuring that local interests are represented if there is a directly elected assembly—especially if the representatives on the assembly come from the borough. I would suggest one directly elected representative for each borough.
That said, I support the aims of my hon. Friends' amendments. I also hope that the Government realise that specifically inserting the words "directly elected mayor" and "directly elected assembly" would ensure that there was no possibility of jiggery-pokery after the Bill is passed.

Mr. Paul Burstow: The Liberal Democrats will not be supporting amendment No. 15, for many of the reasons that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has just described. He made a very powerful set of arguments for not supporting the idea of London borough leaders attempting to hold to account a directly elected mayor, as the Conservative party favours. I shall expand on that slightly.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) argued strongly for a role for borough leaders, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches would not disagree. One of the concerns that we will have, especially in the detailed consideration of the Bill that will bring the authority into its final shape, will be the relationship between the boroughs and the new authority. The danger is that, if that relationship is not clear in the referendum, the credibility of the Government's advocacy of a mayor and an authority could be undermined.
We want to ensure that we have a regional authority which gives strategic direction and a clear strategic lead in London. We want that authority to work full time on behalf of Londoners, dealing with matters that are not about hoovering up powers from local government but about taking powers away from the House and Whitehall.
One of the lessons that we should be drawing from the experiences of the Greater London council is that, all too often, there were turf wars between the GLC and London borough councils about who had responsibility for taking matters forward. The hon. Member for Croydon, South highlighted some areas where that tension could recur under the proposed arrangements.
The solution is not simply borough leaders holding an elected mayor to account. It is the Liberal Democrats' view that that is a recipe for blurred accountability. A question mark would hang over such an indirectly elected assembly about its mandate from the people of London to stand up to a directly elected mayor. Such a directly elected mayor could legitimately question the authority of such an indirectly elected body.
We have seen how inadequate the joint boards of representatives from each London borough—which were set up in 1986 when the GLC was abolished—have been as a means of holding services across London to account. Creating a larger joint board of London borough leaders as a way of holding an elected mayor to account is inappropriate.
For those reasons, we do not support the amendments. However, we believe very strongly that they represent a view which needs to be reflected in debate on the referendum. I hope that Ministers will reflect on the points that have been made. Those made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South have some support in London, although we would argue that they do not have adequate support.
Let the people decide, and be able to express their view. The Minister should explain in more detail his reasons for advocating his position. Let us have a chance to campaign and advocate our position. It should not be for this place to decide the structure of government in London: it should be for the people of London to decide.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I support amendment No. 15, for two reasons.
The Government are setting some precedents about the way in which they are proposing to establish regional government. The Minister was rightly rebuked by the Liberal Democrats on Second Reading for construing the Bill as a strengthening of local democracy. It is in practice no such thing, but the establishment of a regional tier of bureaucracy.
If that regional tier is established in the way the Government propose, with no direct relationship with the boroughs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) eloquently explained, emphasis on the supposed strategic overview will simply lend distance to the body, as distinct from the day-to-day concerns of boroughs, which are often the most important aspect of the scrutiny, and must be applied to the directly elected mayor.
It is clear that many aspects need to be applied to the scrutiny of the executive actions of the directly elected mayor in appointments, and so on. At the heart of that scrutiny is that done on behalf of the boroughs and the interests of many London communities. If such interests are not—by means of the amendment—represented

directly on the authority, there will be tension between the authority and the boroughs, most likely represented by the borough leaders.
It is far preferable that we legislate now for a constitution that puts those principal tensions, interests and concerns together in an authority, where they can be properly resolved, than leave them to be determined in a non-constitutional manner, perhaps through disputes such as those between the GLC and London boroughs, to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) referred. It is better to bring such tensions inside the authority and ensure that the boroughs' interests will be positively represented.

Mr. Raynsford: Last week, the Opposition argued that the people of London should be given an opportunity to vote on whether they wanted a directly elected assembly. That was the proposition that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) put to the House. The amendments before us reveal that argument as humbug, because they would rule out the possibility of a directly elected assembly. Opposition Members should think more carefully about their intentions, instead of tabling amendments that show that they can only oppose, and have no coherent view of their own.
The amendments would give Londoners the opportunity to vote not whether they are in favour of a mayor plus a directly elected assembly, but whether they want a mayor plus an assembly made up of the leaders of the 32 London boroughs. We have made it clear that that is not an option for the Greater London authority. We promised an elected assembly in our manifesto, and that is what we shall deliver.
The leaders of the London boroughs do an excellent job in representing the interests of their areas. That is their rightful role and one which we expect them to play in relation to the GLA. An effective borough leader will be in regular contact with the GLA, and an effective mayor will be in regular contact with London borough leaders.
However, the GLA should not be governed by local interests. It must be able to take a strategic overview, for the benefit of London as a whole. That will not mean riding roughshod over borough interests, but it will mean weighing up different positions and reaching conclusions to the benefit of the whole of London. Only a mayor, working with a directly elected assembly, can do that job.
The assembly will have a vital role to play in the new GLA. It will monitor the activities of the mayor and work with the mayor to devise strategies for London's development. We propose that the assembly should be able to choose Londonwide issues and investigate them, producing reports and recommendations. Those are significant jobs.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that certain issues are of especial importance to particular boroughs? For example, my local borough, Hillingdon, has the greatest expanse of green belt and open space in the whole of London. I believe that it is therefore necessary that someone who is directly elected, or who represents Hillingdon—as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) would argue—should be on the assembly to ensure that the important local


perspective is brought to bear on the mayor's policies. A regional government might have quite different interests.

Mr. Raynsford: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that individual London boroughs have different interests, and it is right and proper that they should present those interests. As I have said, I expect that borough leaders will be active in meeting the mayor and putting their case. I also expect the mayor to be in regular contact with the borough leaders.
However, the hon. Gentleman himself made the forceful point that borough leaders have a job to do already. They are part-timers, many with other jobs, and have much to do looking after their boroughs' interests. It is not realistic to suggest that they can perform in addition all the functions that will be required of the assembly, including monitoring mayoral activities, participating in the decision-making process, and sitting on investigative and scrutiny committees. It beggars belief that the borough leaders would be able to do justice to those jobs. The hon. Gentleman himself made that point, as did the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow).
We have made the case for a package involving a Greater London authority made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly, composed of members elected to do a specific job. The amendments would create a lopsided authority, which would be unable to deliver what the people of London expect. I invite the hon. Member for Croydon, South to withdraw them. If he does not, I invite my hon. Friends and the Liberal Democrats to vote against the amendments.

Mr. Ottaway: It is not beyond the realms of possibility that, after we have the elections currently planned for May 2000, we could end up with an independent mayor, a Conservative assembly and a Labour Government. If the Minister honestly believes that, in that situation, regular contact with the boroughs will take the place of monitoring, working with and making recommendations to the mayor, he has a naive view of how politics works. That will be a recipe for conflict and disaster.

Mr. Raynsford: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister shakes his head, but he only has to look at the conflict and disaster between a Labour Government and a Labour Greater London council, let alone ones of different complexions. He made the point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), that the borough leaders would be too busy. My hon. Friend expressed genuine views—

Mr. Raynsford: He is right.

Mr. Ottaway: In that case, both the Minister and my hon. Friend have to explain why the borough leaders want

to be on the assembly. I challenge the Minister to show me a borough leader who does not want to be on the assembly, and then I will believe him.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman may go and ask the leader of the borough in the area that I represent. Councillor Len Duvall has no aspirations to be a member of the assembly by virtue of being the leader of a borough.

Mr. Ottaway: I am sure that we could find someone on Greenwich council who would like to do the job.

Mr. Wilkinson: That is because councillors have little confidence that local interests of their borough will be safeguarded by a regional government for London. They believe that the members of the assembly will be remote from the concerns that are uppermost in the minds of the people of their boroughs.

Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is right. Borough leaders are very interested in our proposals. If the Minister thinks that borough leaders are not interested, he is in for a busy year.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has challenged me, and I can tell him that the Association of London Government, which represents the views of the London borough leaders, has actively supported the Government's proposals.

Mr. Ottaway: Can the Minister then explain why the majority of London boroughs want two questions? We have the support of at least half, probably more, of the London boroughs.

Mr. Raynsford: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ottaway: I shall read him the list. We have the support of Barnet, Brent, Bromley, Hackney, Harrow, Havering, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Redbridge, Richmond upon Thames, Sutton, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth, Bexley and Westminster. That is not yet a complete list, because more London boroughs have yet to be counted. For the Minister to say that the ALG supports the Government's view is inaccurate, and I have the evidence that it does not.
The London boroughs are deeply concerned by the proposals, and they want more involvement than the Government propose. I invite the House to support the amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made—

The Committee divided: Ayes 116, Noes 297.

Division No. 92]
[4.57 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Amess, David
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Arbuthnot, James
Bums, Simon


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cash, William


Blunt, Crispin
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Body, Sir Richard



Boswell, Tim
Chope, Christopher


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Clappison, James


Brady, Graham
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Brazier, Julian
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter







Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Malins, Humfrey


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maples, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Duncan, Alan
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan Smith, Iain
May, Mrs Theresa


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Flight, Howard
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Pickles, Eric


Fraser, Christopher
Prior, David


Garnier, Edward
Randall, John


Gibb, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Ruffley, David


Gray, James
St Aubyn, Nick


Green, Damian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Grieve, Dominic
Shepherd, Richard


Hague, Rt Hon William
Soames, Nicholas


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hammond, Philip
Streeter, Gary


Hawkins, Nick
Swayne, Desmond



Syms, Robert


Hayes, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Horam, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Hunter, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tyrie, Andrew


Johnson Smith,Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey 
Viggers, Peter



Walter, Robert


Key, Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lansley, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Leigh, Edward
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Letwin, Oliver
Wilkinson, John


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Willetts, David


Lidington, David
Wilshire, David


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Loughton, Tim
Yeo, Tim


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


MacKay, Andrew



Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Ayes:


McLoughlin, Patrick
Mr. James Cran and


Madel, Sir David
Mr. Stephen Day.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boateng, Paul


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brake, Tom


Alexander, Douglas
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Allen, Graham
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Burden, Richard


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Burgon, Colin


Atkins, Charlotte
Burstow, Paul


Austin, John
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Byers, Stephen


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beard, Nigel
Cann, Jamie


Begg, Miss Anne
Caplin, Ivor


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Casale, Roger


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cawsey, Ian


Bennett, Andrew F
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Benton, Joe
Chaytor, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Clapham, Michael





Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hoey, Kate



Home Robertson, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Ann
Hoyle, Lindsay


Coaker, Vernon
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coleman, Iain
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Connarty, Michael
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hurst, Alan


Cooper, Yvette
Hutton, John


Corbett, Robin
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Crausby, David
Jamieson, David


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jenkins, Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Ms Jenny


Darvill, Keith
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Denham, John
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dismore, Andrew
Kemp, Fraser


Dobbin, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kidney, David


Donohoe, Brian H
Kilfoyle, Peter


Doran, Frank
Kirkwood, Archy


Dowd, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Drew, David
Laxton, Bob


Drown, Ms Julia
Lepper, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Leslie, Christopher


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Levitt, Tom


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Efford, Clive
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Linton, Martin


Ennis, Jeff
Livingstone, Ken


Fatchett, Derek
Lock, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McAllion, John


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McCabe, Steve


Flint, Caroline
McFall, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mclsaac, Shona


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Galloway, George
McNulty, Tony


Gardiner, Barry
MacShane, Denis


Gerrard, Neil
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gibson, Dr Ian
McWalter, Tony


Godsiff, Roger
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mandelson, Peter


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marek, Dr John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Martlew, Eric


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Maxton, John


Hanson, David
Meale, Alan


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Merron, Gillian


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Healey, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Milbum, Alan


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Miller, Andrew


Hepburn, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heppell, John
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hesford, Stephen
Mountford, Kali


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mullin, Chris


Hill, Keith
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)






Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Soley, Clive


Norris, Dan
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Spellar, John


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Olner, Bill
Stevenson, George


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pendry, Tom
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Perham, Ms Linda
Stringer, Graham


Pickthall, Colin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pike, Peter L
Stunell, Andrew


Plaskitt, James
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pollard, Kerry
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pond, Chris



Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Timms, Stephen


Primarolo, Dawn
Tipping, Paddy


Prosser, Gwyn
Todd, Mark


Purchase, Ken
Touhig, Don


Quin, Ms Joyce
Trickett, Jon


Quinn, Lawrie
Truswell, Paul


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rendel, David
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Tyler, Paul


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rogers, Allan
Wallace, James


Rooker, Jeff
Walley, Ms Joan


Rooney, Terry
Ward, Ms Claire


Rowlands, Ted
Wareing, Robert N


Roy, Frank
Watts, David


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Webb, Steve


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
White, Brian


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ryan, Ms Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Salter, Martin
(Swansea W)


Sanders, Adrian
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Savidge, Malcolm
Willis, Phil


Sawford, Phil
Wills, Michael


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Shaw, Jonathan
Wise, Audrey


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wood, Mike


Singh, Marsha
Wray, James


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mr. Greg Pope and


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Norman Fowler: The debate so far has been unsatisfactory because the Government have refused to move on any of their propositions and, in particular, on allowing two questions in the referendum. Outside the Government, there are very few people who support having only one question.
The Minister often accuses me of never quoting the London Evening Standard. I am happy to break that record by quoting this evening's edition, which contains an article with the unpromising—for the Minister— headline:
Blair faces revolt over London mayor".

The article states
Tony Blair today faced a grassroots revolt from his party activists over the Government's plans for a 'Voice of London' directly-elected mayor and assembly to run the capital.
Mr. Blair was hit by criticism of his one-question referendum next May. Many Labour branches and trade unions urge a rethink to allow at least two questions to establish if Londoners want both an assembly and a figurehead mayor brought in from outside its ranks … The submissions made to the Government about its plans also include a demand—from Mr. Raynsford's own Greenwich constituency local government committee—for the new assembly to be given tax-raising powers. Another from Ms Jackson's Hampstead and Highgate expresses 'considerable unease about the … role of the mayor' and calls for separate questions.
There is a consensus that there are two issues. [Interruption.] I can establish it in even greater detail if the House wishes. Should we have a directly elected mayor and should we have a directly elected assembly? The Conservative party's view is clear. We support a directly elected mayor, but we do not favour a directly elected assembly, and therefore want two questions in the referendum. In that, we are supported by a host of newspapers which, for some reason, the Minister never wishes me to quote against him, such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph.
The Liberal Democrats take a different view on the policy but we are at one in wanting more than one question. Some Labour Back Benchers also take a different view on the policy. It is significant that in this debate we have heard only one Back-Bench speech from a Labour Member. Even with the Minister's renowned optimism in claiming support, he could not claim that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was exactly coming out in support of his line.
In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Brent, East told us that he
went to what was called a consultation meeting of the Greater London Labour party
at which
Nine out of the 10 speeches opposed the principle of a separately elected mayor".
The hon. Gentleman continued:
If we are prepared to trust Londoners, we would have a debate in which Ministers could marshall their arguments and we could challenge them. If Ministers could persuade Londoners, Ministers would get their way, but they do not trust Londoners, which is why they will not be given a choice. Londoners will be told, 'Take it or leave it.'
He added
we should not deny Londoners the chance to decide what system of government they want. I am deeply ashamed of the way my party has proceeded tonight, because it is an offence to Londoners and an insult to their intelligence."—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 403.]
Even with the Minister's sunny disposition, he may find it a wee bit difficult to claim that that was a declaration of undying support for his cause.
5.15 pm
Even more significantly, there are others who support the Government's proposals—though not many, to judge from tonight's speeches. The Guardian came out in favour of them. However, in a now famous—or should it be infamous—omission, the Minister did not quote its statement that while it certainly was in favour of what he


was saying he should make the argument in a campaign. The point is that not only opponents but supporters of the Government's position want two questions.
The matter reveals an amazing lack of confidence. In its manifesto, the Labour party said that the purpose of its referendum was to confirm public demand. How can public demand be confirmed if the public are not allowed to express their view? The Government hope that support for a mayor will pull through the more unpopular idea of an elected assembly. Whether I am right or wrong, I believe that that proposition should be put to the test. It is the Government who have decided to hold the referendum, so they should follow the logic of their decision and allow two questions. Let London and Londoners decide, because that is the way that they wish to do it. As it stands, clause 1 is unsatisfactory and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: First, Sir Alan, I apologise for not using your new title when I spoke last Wednesday. Your elevation had temporarily escaped me.
Like the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), we believe that clause 1 should be deleted. That would allow the Bill to proceed, but we could perfectly properly go back to the matter on Report to get a first clause in proper form. We hope that the House will shortly vote to delete the clause, but I wish to amplify the reasons that I gave last week and expand on the references made by the Conservative spokesman.
Last Wednesday, under some pressure from the Opposition, the Minister conceded—for which we were grateful—that the responses to the consultation should be made available. Diligent as ever, my team went and knocked on the door of the library in Marsham street at the appointed hour of 1 pm on Friday afternoon. They were admitted and, in the four hours available to them before the library closed, they went through the responses. As a result, the world now knows the weight of the Labour party opposition to the Government's submission. I have photocopies of the relevant documents which gave rise to today's story in the Evening Standard.
It is clear from the first published analysis of the replies to the Government's consultative Green Paper on London Government that the Government's views and those of many London Labour Members of Parliament are poles apart. There is now clear evidence of widespread Labour opposition to a directly elected mayor, as well as support for a referendum with more than one question.
As we heard last Wednesday, the Government have not listened to the views of their Back Benchers, the Opposition or people outside. Perhaps the extent to which those views are in the public domain will mean that they will be taken seriously into account. I hope that they will, because if Labour Back Benchers are unhappy, they should be in a position to influence the Government.

Mr. Raynsford: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister is suggesting either that Labour Back Benchers are not unhappy or that they are in no position to influence the Government. I would put money on the latter.
I wish to cite the evidence which, to me, is unambiguous. I will start with the Minister's own constituency. The Greenwich Labour party local government committee wrote on 18 October 1997
:
Our Committee discussed the consultation paper … Votes were taken on a number of issues which arose during the discussion, and I was asked to pass to you our views on these issues.
Interestingly, the letter was not addressed to the Minister, but to "The London Debate"—a cover-all title. It may have been embarrassing for the committee to write to its constituency Member of Parliament on this issue.
The third item on the agenda of the Greenwich committee was:
The assembly should have tax-raising powers".
The first item was
The principle of 'equal opportunities' should be paramount in the new structure, and this should in particular apply to candidates for mayor and for the assembly.
No one is arguing about that. The second item was
There should be a limit on the time any one person should hold the office of mayor.
There is no great dispute about that.
The Greenwich local government committee argued specifically for tax-varying powers and suggested that the authority should have some responsibility for health in London—a suggestion which the Government have studiously ignored. My party would wish to go further than the Greenwich committee.
The Islington, South and Finsbury constituency Labour party—the constituency of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—asked for:
Strategic overview of health provision, and community care and long-term care"—
something for which my party has long argued. It added:
The Mayor/Chair/Leader should be elected from amongst its membership.
It cannot be clearer than that. The constituency party also
felt that the GLA
should have the power to precept.
I shall return to that matter.
The London Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform produced a well-argued letter, saying:
Strong feelings of disquiet were expressed that Londoners have not been consulted at all about whether they want a directly, and separately, elected Mayor for London.
A directly elected Mayor, and separately from the assembly that s/he will represent, makes it highly likely that there will differences in the policy that they want to enact … We should be very wary of introducing such a system here.
The letter argues that Londoners have not had an opportunity to indicate how they want the devolved powers to be implemented:
Even with a longer consultation period the Green Paper does not ask for input regarding the mayor and whether a separate election is desirable".
The Belsize and Adelaide branch of the Hampstead and Highgate Labour party—the constituency of the Minister for Transport in London, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—produced a relatively long submission, which said:
We appreciate that a referendum on whether to have a London Authority with a directly elected mayor was promised in the election manifesto. It would therefore be wrong to go back on this.


However, our own discussions have shown that many of those who support a Greater London Authority do not wish to go so far outside the British tradition as to support the idea of a directly elected mayor—which does have some dangers of landing us—
this is reminiscent of the speech by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) the other day—
with inexperienced and unsuitable mayors promoted by skilled advertising campaigns.
What a surprise. The submission continued:
This outcome is not exactly unknown in America!
It went on to make the case for a two-question referendum.
The Brent Labour party—which covers not only the constituency of the hon. Member for Brent, East, but that of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)—said:
We further believe that if the implementation of the government's proposals is to ensure democracy, accountability and probity then the Mayor should be part of the Assembly and must carry a majority in the Assembly on the same principle as the Leader of a local council or indeed the Prime Minister in Parliament.
The submission which followed the famous meeting of the Greater London Labour party regional council—about which we heard the other day—confirmed the report given to us by the hon. Member for Brent, East.
The discussion was wide-ranging and not directed systematically to the questions in the Green Paper. The indicative votes taken at the end rejected the concept of a directly elected mayor.
It omits to state that the majority was nine to one against.

Mr. Tony McNulty: That is not correct. I was there all day and there were no votes.

Mr. Hughes: The submission deals with the consultation conference on 12 October 1997, and refers to
Workshop 1—The Mayor and Assembly.
The submission says that there were "indicative votes."[Interruption.] I was not at the conference, Sir Alan, but a conference without a vote seems a bit funny. If a vote was taken, I believe that the majority was nine to one. The Labour party can sort out whether there was a vote, but the conclusion was that there was overwhelming support for a full-time post. However, it says clearly that the
indicative votes taken at the end rejected the concept of a directly elected Mayor.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) will no doubt say that this is fiction. If so, that gives even more cause for concern, as it would seem that the Labour party cannot even record its own meetings accurately. Incidentally, the London regional conference is a rare event these days—the previous conference was held in 1995.
The London Labour Mayors' Association, founded in 1920, is an august body, and there are a lot of London Labour mayors these days. The association was explicit:
The Government's proposal for an elected Mayor with executive powers is not considered acceptable because
It would lead to the setting-up of two bureaucracies—one to serve the Mayor and one to serve the GLA. It would lead to public clashes on policies between the Mayor and the GLA and its Leader. It could lead to the installation of a too-powerful political figure. It would create an ambiguity with the present Lord Mayor of London".

Lesser bodies have also contributed. The Cambridge and Coombe Labour party is a branch of the Richmond Park constituency Labour party—not the strongest Labour party in London. It said:
We have reservations about the idea of a directly elected Mayor, as this is not in keeping with British political traditions. However, we note that a Mayor elected by the Assembly, or by the boroughs, is not given as an option.
Well, what a surprise.
The Kingston and Surbiton constituency Labour party—again, not the biggest Labour party, but it is none-the-less relevant—asked, first, for a vote on tax-raising powers and, secondly, for a
strong executive but answerable to and controlled ultimately by the assembly.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who is in the Chamber, always clearly expresses the views of his local members and voters. His constituency Labour party said:
Most members present thought that the assembly and the mayor should not be separately elected. One member thought the mayor should be elected from those elected to the assembly.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) argued strongly the other day for a directly elected mayor. That is not what the Shaftesbury branch of Battersea Labour party believes. It is the only branch that submitted a response: no other branch bothered.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Tacit consent.

Mr. Hughes: It may be tacit consent, or there may not be much interest in the proposals. If we go by the silent majority, we are all in trouble. The Shaftesbury branch's submission is explicit. It says:
We are against a directly-elected Mayor. Instead, the Major should be an elected member of the elected assembly and should be chosen by that assembly.
5.30 pm
The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham), who is a new representative, addressed the constituency party meeting, but I do not know what views she expressed. Someone was tasked—to use the new word—with giving the constituency party's comments and views in writing. The letter said:
The mayor should not be elected separately. The mayor should not be separate from the Assembly. This would avoid conflict between the mayor and the Assembly. The mayor should be a member of the assembly, elected as a member of the assembly and elected as mayor by the assembly. The power should be vested in the Assembly not in the mayor.
It is all pretty clear.
I will make one last local party contribution and then throw a few wind-up bonus balls into the equation. I have saved a good one till last. It is a submission from my own borough—the Alleyn ward Labour party in the new Dulwich and West Norwood constituency, which is the seat of the now famous Minister for Public Health. The letter says:
We have some doubts about the proposal for a separately elected mayor"—
not many doubts, but some doubts—
 "It is not clear that the process of candidate selection by political parties, and election campaign, is suitable to produce one person with the right range of executive and strategic skills. It may be preferable to give powers to the Assembly to appoint a Leader and Chief Executive.


If I had begun the debate having not already been persuaded of the demerits of this proposal, the evidence would be weighing up against me, and I would feel under some pressure.

Mr. Ottaway: I can clarify the position of the Greater London Labour party executive, because we have the minutes of the meeting. The House will be interested to know that the chair of the Greater London Labour party, Jim Fitzpatrick
bowed to pressure from delegates and agreed that workshops could submit resolutions to the closing plenary if they had strong views.
The minutes go on to say that
when the workshop chair allowed an indicative vote on the question of a separately elected mayor",
they voted eight to one in favour.
Some delegates passed resolutions to the chair but she declined to put them to the vote and when we got to the final plenary, Jim Fitzpatrick refused to put the views of the workshops to the vote on the grounds that they were not in the form of resolutions.

Mr. Hughes: Well, well, well. I do not imagine that Nye Bevan or Herbert Morrison would have been pleased: they would not have been happy people. I knew that there was a danger in taking minutes, and an even greater danger in leaving them on the photocopier. They show that people are not happy.
There is an important point. Political parties in London work the constituencies. The evidence is now clear that all three political parties in London, and their members who have expressed views, are united.

Mr. Raynsford: No, they are not.

Mr. Hughes: By their deeds ye shall know them, by their words ye shall judge them.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be hearing about them.

Mr. Hughes: I look forward to hearing about them. There is a strong ground-floor view in local and regional Labour parties, that we should not have the system that the Government propose, and it is shared by a Member of the European Parliament. Even if the Government do not believe that is the overwhelming view, they should at least accept that there may be another argument and that another question could be included. The Government could campaign against it: they could go into battle. The Labour party could be a pluralist party and allow the Tooting, Battersea, Hampstead and Highgate, Greenwich and Dulwich and West Norwood branches to argue their case, and the mass ranks of the Government could argue theirs. Let there be a debate; let there be an argument. Let pluralism survive. At the moment, the Government seem to be practising top-down politics 10 Downing street knows best; the non-democratic tendency.
I do not mind terribly which decision the voters make, as long as they have a choice. I would happily and warmly endorse the result. We will argue our case, and as democrats we will abide by the result. But please let us

have a debate not just in the House. The Government obtained a majority of seats, although they were not supported by a majority of the electorate.

Mr. Raynsford: In London we were.

Mr. Hughes: They got a majority in London by 0.5 per cent., but it is not only London Members who vote on these matters, as we shall see when we have a Division. If the Government relied only on hon. Members from relevant parts of the country, they would often have been in trouble in the past. All hon. Members vote. The Government did not obtain a majority of the popular vote at the last election they did not get a majority of those who voted, let alone those who did not vote. Let us not artificially distort the result.
The Member of the European Parliament for Central London is Stan Newens, a long-standing and experienced voice of the Labour party. He fully supports the need for a strategic authority, but says:
I am fully in favour of an elected authority which chooses its own Mayor, but I do not agree with a directly elected Mayor which may well lead to division between the Mayor's office and the majority of Members of the Authority.
His views are significant, because he is elected by more votes than any hon. Member here as Members of the European Parliament represent larger electorates.
Wider and further away from grass roots activists are the submissions of the Southern and Eastern Regional Council of the Trades Union Congress, which makes the same point. It says in its letter:
We have argued that, for reasons of democracy, accountability and effective government, the Mayor should be the leader of the majority group in the Assembly and therefore, he/she should not be separately elected.
Clause 1 will, in effect, confirm the Government's objective of a separately elected mayor and a separately elected assembly. We shall debate later what should be on the ballot paper. Before the Government steamroller their view through, they should take account of the views of non-political organisations, such as the London Voluntary Service Council, and of their political friends and allies.
If we want the Greater London authority to have authority, and if we want the form of London government that most Londoners want, we should listen to the submissions from both sides. I accept that the Minister will cite submissions that put another view from those that I have cited, but we should allow both cases to be put. I hope that either the House will vote to delete the clause so that it can be rewritten or, if Labour Members are not brave enough to do that, they will abstain.

Mr. Keith Hill: I do not want to do that.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman cannot abstain, because he is a Parliamentary Private Secretary, so he is tied by the apron strings. As his electorate know, he is unable to do anything without losing office. Other Labour Members—I call them Labour friends and colleagues— have democratic roots. I hope that they will be really brave and that if they do not vote that the clause should not stand part they will at least sit on their backsides and abstain. That way the Government and the House will


realise that the Bill before us has not yet got the question and the proposal right for the Londonwide government that we all want and hope will happen soon.

Mr. Wilkinson: I shall try to be brief, but since the House of Commons has had to face the constitutional monstrosity of a pre-legislative referendum Bill of this type and since clause 1 is at the heart of that proposed legislation, I urge hon. Members to think carefully about whether, because of Labour Members' mute behaviour, we may have no Report stage and no chance to reconsider what is at the heart of this legislation—as I have said many times, the House of Commons is being asked to approve the biggest municipal blank cheque in history.
As the Minister confirmed, the electors of London will have only six weeks in which to consider the final draft proposals—the White Paper. They will not have a debate on the Bill before they are called to vote in the referendum on 7 May. At best, they will have about six weeks, which will anyway be taken up with campaigns for the borough elections, which will consume most of the attention and the energies of the party activists—those are the elections which are of primary interest to the people of London.
That we should be laying down a format for a referendum before we have seen the White Paper or even debated it, and before we know the contents of the Bill, is wholly inappropriate. We do not know the voting system. We do not know whether it will be first past the post, although I think we can confidently say that it is excluded because the Government are hellbent on adopting alien and strange electoral systems that our electors comprehend very little. We do not know what the constituency basis will be, but we are pretty certain that it will not be a borough basis. That was made absolutely plain by our last debate on the subject. It will probably be a regional or Euro-constituency basis and there may even be Londonwide lists.
Our electors will have little control over the candidates that emerge from the top of those lists with a chance of election. Our electors will have no idea about the tax-raising powers. Some generalised outlines will probably be vouchsafed in the White Paper, but, without adequate scrutiny in this place and the chance of a proper debate on the legislation to enact those revenue-raising powers, the people of London will have no chance properly to make up their minds. I am sure that they will do it on the basis of folk memory—quite rightly so. Their folk memory is that the Greater London council arrogated to itself more and more powers and responsibilities and an increasingly large burden fell on the ratepayers of London as a consequence. Fortunately, I am certain that mat is the precedent that they will recall—once bitten, twice shy. Nevertheless, they should have more than six weeks of rushed consideration in the middle of a borough election campaign to consider the implications of the funding of this Greater London authority before they are called on to cast their vote on it in a referendum.
I doubt whether the electors will have any chance significantly to assess the system for the selection of the mayoral candidates. Will they be selected by Londonwide primaries or by party caucuses? Will particularly charismatic or rich individuals be in prime place? How will the funding be organised? Will they be able to bankroll their own campaigns? How will the television time be allocated? All those questions are germane. Will there be cash limits for the parties if there are party labels on the candidates, as we presume?
All those things needed to be spelled out in greater detail in the debate on clause 1. They should have been challenged, candidly, and examined more critically by Labour Members. We heard why they were not from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who has more experience of Londonwide government than probably any other Labour Member. He is subject to the gagging order, although he does not take any notice of it. He is subject to the order relating to voting to which I referred late in the debate last Wednesday and that order has significant implications for the independence of hon. Members.
To be candid, this is a disreputable legislative exercise to which Labour Members are knowingly party. They are doing Londoners as a whole the greatest disservice. Before such a monumental change in the governance of London is instituted, before giving legislative powers to put such a referendum in place, we should know exactly what Londoners will be likely to have to vote for. Furthermore, they are entitled to two questions because they are a discriminating electorate. They may want the mayor and not the assembly, or vice versa. This is a virtually fraudulent exercise in so-called constitutional democracy and it has been exposed as such. It needs to be further exposed in debate on Report and, if we cannot do so, I hope that down the corridor their lordships can

Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be brief. The chronology which we are pursuing in these affairs relating to London is a debate last June, consultation which ended on 24 October, the referendum Bill which we are discussing, the White Paper which the Minister promised us for the week of 23 March, the referendum itself in May and, if the vote is in the affirmative, the Greater London Authority Bill thereafter and the elections in 2000. That chronology makes matters difficult for the Opposition and for Londoners, but it also makes matters a little difficult for the Government.
In our debate on 19 November, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) dissected the Second Reading speeches on the referendum questions in support of the Minister by Back Benchers. In particular, he examined their speeches on behalf of the principle of the Bill. I think that I could neutrally claim that he did not think much of them. No Labour Member other than the hon. Member for Brent, East spoke when we discussed the referendum questions last Wednesday night, so we, let alone the hon. Gentleman, are in no position to dissect them. Perhaps, given their performance on Second Reading, they were prudent to maintain their silence.
The Minister was a little cheeky, given their silence, to argue that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was using selective quotations, since by definition he was unable to quote them at all. Consequently, we are left only with the Minister as the voice for why the combined Greater London authority proposal is the right solution. Last Wednesday, he said:
We shall make sure that the package that we put to Londoners is one that works".—[Official Report, 19 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 416.]
Given the immense leap in the dark that we are making, I admired his confidence, but it is reasonable for us to ask him to be a little more forthcoming on why he has that confidence. His principal rationale to date has been the


manifesto and the election result, but no manifesto and no election result can by themselves protect a Government— and thus Londoners—from folly. His justification that the Government are carrying out their manifesto pledges is itself not proof against the Government deciding, as they follow the curious reverse chronology that I outlined, that they made a mistake and were wrong in their original thinking.
The Minister owes the Committee a rather fuller account of why the Government have such particular confidence that this formulation is the right one.

Mr. Raynsford: This has been a curious exercise in fantasy politics. Opposition Members have devoted the major part of their speeches to fantasising about what the Labour party might believe. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spent most of his speech speculating on the Labour party's views. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) spent some time in textual analysis and speculation about what might have happened at meetings of the London Labour party. All that leads me to the view that perhaps it is expected that other Conservative Members will not resist the temptation to cross to this side of the Chamber to find out more about how the Labour party organises its affairs. I assure them that, when they come, they will receive a warm welcome and be given a full explanation on how we operate.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield also has a certain fantasy about the press. Concerned that in its editorial, the Evening Standard had given the Government full support for our proposals and the question that we intend to put to the people of London in a referendum, he had to have recourse to a news article today under the headline "Blair faces revolt over London mayor". Unfortunately, he mentioned that immediately after his amendment had been put to the vote and defeated by a majority of 187, with no Labour Members voting against. So much for the revolt that he expects. 1 assure him that there is no revolt.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, in an interesting speech, managed to dredge through a large number of submissions in response to the consultation—some 1,200—and I congratulate him and his researchers on their great industry. He managed to find a handful expressing a degree of difference from the Government's point of view. I put it to him in the most charitable way that, if one involves oneself in a consultation exercise and asks 61 questions, as the Government have, giving people an opportunity to comment on all those questions, it is hardly surprising if some come back with a view that differs from that of the Government. We welcome that and expect differences of opinion. That is what consultation is about. I do not find it in the least strange.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the Minister's pluralistic attitude. In a spirit of pluralism, will he give an undertaking to the Committee that, for all the remaining votes on the Bill, there will be no sanctions against any Labour Member who votes against his or her Front Benchers? Will he confirm that the majority of Labour submissions were against a directly elected mayor?

Mr. Raynsford: I assure the hon. Gentleman that disciplinary matters are the responsibility of the Whip,

but there is no question of taking measures against any Labour Members, because they are solid in support of the Government's view. If the hon. Gentleman consults Hansard, he will see that, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), Labour Members voted solidly with the Government in Committee last week and all Labour Members supported the Government on Second Reading. That is a measure of the support for the Government from Labour Back Benchers.

Mr. Hughes: I would not dare say who it was, but I can tell the Minister, and the Committee for its amusement, and for the sake of truth, that at least one Labour Member, having voted in the Government Lobby, asked me what they had just voted for and said, "Oh, my God, I haven't voted for that, have I?"

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman should try a little harder. I regard that comment in the same way as I regard his earlier claim that the Labour party did not have the support of the majority of Londoners in the election. We secured a majority of electors in London at the last election and the hon. Gentleman was wrong to imply that we did not have that support.

Sir Norman Fowler: Does the Minister remember the searing attack made on him by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who said specifically that the only reason he would not vote against the Government that night was that, if he did so, he was likely to be debarred from further candidature for the Labour party. Is that wrong?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East remains an active member of the Labour party, unlike the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), whose existence in the Conservative party appears to have been terminated by the leader of his party. We shall take no lessons from the Conservative party on the exercise of proper disciplinary procedures.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey had difficulty finding evidence to support his case.

Mr. Lansley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: No, I shall not give way for the moment. I am dealing with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who managed to find 10 submissions among the 1,867 from Labour party wards in London that expressed a different view from that of the Government. Ten out of 1,867 does not strike me as a problem. It may be significant in the hon. Gentleman's terms, but it is a small percentage. In Committee last week, we were discussing percentages of 0.01. That is the order of magnitude that we are discussing.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have not added up the number of Labour party wards, but I am happy to take the Minister's word. I put the same question to him: does he deny that, of those who submitted responses, a majority opposed the Government?

Mr. Raynsford: The considerable majority of people who responded to the consultation supported the Government's proposals. I shall return to the issue of Labour branches in a moment.
I want to deal specifically with two allegations by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about responses from my constituency Labour party in Greenwich and from the Belsize and Adelaide branch in the constituency of the Minister for Transport in London, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). The impression that the hon. Gentleman gave was not accurate. The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that the Greenwich Labour party did not support the Government's proposals. That is wrong. The Greenwich Labour party made it clear that it did support the proposals. It made a series of detailed comments on matters to do with equal opportunities, the length of term of a mayor, the financial arrangements for the authority, the authority's remit, its role in relation to strategic open space in London and the number of assembly members. They were all detailed and useful comments. It was a consultation exercise.
I have just referred to the paper that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has before him. He will confirm that it does not support his case for two questions in a referendum. Indeed, it makes no reference to that.
The Belsize and Adelaide branch of the Hampstead and Highgate Labour party made it clear in its response that it did not wish to go back on a manifesto pledge. The hon. Gentleman should congratulate it on rightly attaching much importance to supporting manifesto pledges. He was extremely selective in his quotations. I remind him that the one notable omission from his quotations was the view of the borough that he represents. Let me quote from the response of the London borough of Southwark, as the hon. Gentleman clearly wishes to heed the views of local communities. It says:
The proposals for an elected Mayor for London and an elected assembly are supported.
That is the view of the hon. Gentleman's authority and it would be good if he would fall in line with it.
The Bill is not about providing for an expensive legislative opinion poll on a multitude of different questions. It is not about recklessly offering a range of alternatives in the clear knowledge that some of them would be completely unworkable. It is about letting the people of London have their say on whether they agree with what the Government propose. Our proposal is new—a directly elected mayor working with an elected assembly is a new concept. It will be exciting and innovative. Inevitably, there are constitutional conservatives from all parties who seek to argue against it, claiming that it is too radical or not how things used to be in the past. That is always the case when one tries to institute change, but I hope that, between now and next May, when the referendum is held, we can win many of those people over and convince them to vote yes on our proposal. I am sure that, when they see our final proposals in March, they will change their minds.
Some—perhaps the type frightened by change or with an interest in the status quo—may continue to oppose, but it is absolutely clear that they do not speak for London. In a recent opinion poll, 82 per cent. of Londoners supported our plans and the business community gave them overwhelming support. Last week, the London chamber of commerce published findings showing that our proposals have the support of 86 per cent. of the capital's business leaders. Our proposals are right and they are popular, and the Government are proceeding with plans to put them into effect.
We are unconvinced by arguments for more than one question. The Government think that the referendum should present a clear, single, comprehensible proposition to the people of London. The referendum should be capable of delivering an unambiguous mandate. Despite the time that was available to proponents of multiple questions, additional questions that have so far been proposed have been numerous and contradictory. There has been no single, agreed second question that would allow people to represent their views and be satisfied that they would know the outcome of their vote. No one has been able to produce that. None of the proposals that have been advanced so far would provide a clear mandate, and all of them reflect nothing more than the political priorities of those who concocted them.
6 pm
A single question on a well-thought-out package is the only fair and honest option. Everyone's vote will count in exactly the way that people intend it to count. Voters will be able to study detailed proposals in the White Paper, make a considered judgment about the whole package on offer and cast their vote. They will know exactly what they are voting for and what they will get. If they do not like it, they can vote no. That is the Government's proposition. It is correct and fair and I urge the Committee to support the clause.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 291, Noes 154.

Division No. 93]
[6 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cann, Jamie


Ainger, Nick
Caplin, Ivor


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Casale, Roger


Alexander, Douglas
Cawsey, Ian


Allen, Graham
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Chaytor, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ashton, Joe



Atkins, Charlotte
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Austin, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Banks, Tony
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Barnes, Harry
Clelland, David


Barron, Kevin
Clwyd, Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coaker, Vernon


Beard, Nigel
Coleman, Iain


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Colman, Tony


Begg, Miss Anne
Connarty, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bennett, Andrew F
Cooper, Yvette


Benton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Cox, Tom


Best, Harold
Crausby, David


Boateng, Paul
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dalyell, Tarn


Buck, Ms Karen
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Burden, Richard
Darvill, Keith


Burgon, Colin
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davidson, Ian


Byers, Stephen
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dawson, Hilton


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Denham, John






Dismore, Andrew
Kemp, Fraser


Dobbin, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kidney, David


Donohoe, Brian H
Kilfoyle, Peter


Doran, Frank
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dowd, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Drew, David
Laxton, Bob


Drown, Ms Julia
Lepper, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Leslie, Christopher


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Levitt, Tom


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Edwards, Huw
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Efford, Clive
Linton, Martin


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Livingstone, Ken


Ennis, Jeff
Lock, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McAllion, John


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McCabe, Steve


Flint, Caroline
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Macdonald, Calum


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McFall, John


Galloway, George
Mclsaac, Shona


Gardiner, Barry
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gerard, Neil
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gibson, Dr Ian
McNulty, Tony


Godsiff, Roger
MacShane, Denis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mandelson, Peter


Grocott, Bruce
Marek, Dr John


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hanson, David
Martlew, Eric


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Maxton, John


Healey, John
Meale, Alan


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Merron, Gillian


Hepburn, Stephen
Michael, Alun


Heppell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hesford, Stephen
Milbum, Alan


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Miller, Andrew


Hill, Keith
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Hoey, Kate
Mountford, Kali


Home Robertson, John
Mudie, George


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mullin, Chris


Hope, Phil
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hoyle, Lindsay
Norris, Dan


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Olner, Bill


Hurst, Alan
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hutton, John
Palmer, Dr Nick


Illsley, Eric
Pearson, Ian


Ingram, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pickthall, Colin


Jamieson, David
Pike, Peter L


Jenkins, Brian
Plaskitt, James


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pollard, Kerry


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Pond, Chris


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Ms Jenny
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Purchase, Ken


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quin, Ms Joyce


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Quinn, Lawrie


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rapson, Syd


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Raynsford, Nick





Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)



Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rogers, Allan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rooker, Jeff
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rooney, Terry
Timms, Stephen


Rowlands, Ted
Tipping, Paddy


Roy, Frank
Todd, Mark


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Touhig, Don


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Trickett, Jon


Ryan, Ms Joan
Truswell, Paul


Salter, Martin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sawford, Phil
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sedgemore, Brian
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Shaw, Jonathan
Walley, Ms Joan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Ms Claire


Singh, Marsha
Wareing, Robert N


Skinner, Dennis
Watts, David


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
White, Brian


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Whitehead, Dr Alan


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wills, Michael


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wise, Audrey


Spellar, John
Wood, Mike


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wray, James


Stevenson, George
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Stoate, Dr Howard



Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stringer, Graham
Mr. Clive Betts and


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mr. Greg Pope.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Duncan, Alan


Amess, David
Duncan Smith, Iain


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Evans, Nigel


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Faber, David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fabricant, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fallon, Michael


Blunt, Crispin
Flight, Howard


Body, Sir Richard
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Boswell, Tim
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brady, Graham
Fraser, Christopher


Brake, Tom
Gale, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Garnier, Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gibb, Nick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gill, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gorrie, Donald


Burnett, John
Gray, James


Bums, Simon
Green, Damian


Burstow, Paul
Greenway, John


Butterfill, John
Grieve, Dominic


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Cash, William
Hammond, Philip


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hawkins, Nick



Hayes, John


Chidgey, David
Heald, Oliver


Chope, Christopher
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Horam, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Cotter, Brian
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)






Jenkin, Bernard
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Johnson Smith,
St Aubyn, Nick


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sanders, Adrian


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Key, Robert
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shepherd, Richard


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Kirkwood, Archy
Soames, Nicholas


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Lansley, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Leigh, Edward
Streeter, Gary


Letwin, Oliver
Stunell, Andrew


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Swayne, Desmond


Lidington, David
Syms, Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Loughton, Tim
Taylor, lan (Esher & Walton)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Thompson, William


McLoughlin, Patrick
Townend, John


Madel, Sir David
Tredinnick, David


Malins, Humfrey
Trend, Michael


Maples, John
Tyler, Paul


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Tyrie, Andrew



Viggers, Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Wallace, James


May, Mrs Theresa
Walter, Robert


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Waterson, Nigel


Moore, Michael
Webb, Steve


Moss, Malcolm
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Nicholls, Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Öpik, Lembit
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Ottaway, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Page, Richard
Willetts, David


Paice, James
Willis, Phil


Paterson, Owen
Wilshire, David


Pickles, Eric
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Prior, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Randall, John
Yeo, Tim


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rendel, David



Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Stephen Day and


Ruffley, David
Mr. James Cran.

Question accordingly agreed to

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

FORM OF BALLOT PAPER

Question proposed, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is the last chance that the Committee will have to sort out what is on the ballot paper. We have had a debate in which the case has been put that there is an overwhelming view in favour of alternatives being generally available. The Government keep on resisting. They will be in more trouble when the Bill goes to the other place, but we now have a final opportunity to consider the ballot paper.
As colleagues will be aware, we tried the other day to put to the Committee various alternatives. The Minister argued that, as yet, there was no commonly agreed formulation, other than the Government's. That is a bit rich in one respect: no one else agrees with the Government's formulation. Therefore, although civil servants and high-powered draftspeople have pored all over it, basically,

the question in the schedule is the same as the proposal in the manifesto:
Are you in favour of the government's proposals for a Greater London Authority, made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly?
6.15 pm
The question does indeed have the merit of simplicity: all the issues of London and the future of London are to be determined through one question. The Scots had two questions. They managed perfectly well. They managed to produce a majority for Government policy even on both questions, so the Government cannot complain.
The Government won an overwhelming majority for the question about which there had been much prior agreement; my Scottish colleagues will bear testimony to the fact that the efforts to reach an agreement resulted in so much unanimity. The great benefit—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend—or hon. and learned Friend as he is now—the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—is that, as a result, what was approved will be much more secure.
We are trying to achieve for London a secure form of regional government. We do not want a "here today, gone tomorrow" form of regional government, so we want a question, or set of questions, that commands general agreement. We want to learn from the Scottish experience.
The Welsh experience teaches us that we need such general agreement. In Wales, there was no attempt at an agreement and there were differences of opinion. There was no convention and, as we know, the result was that the proposal—a single question—sneaked through. We could learn some lessons from the fact that, in Scotland, where there were two questions, there was much greater support than in Wales.
In the previous debate, the Minister implied that there could be no agreement between anyone else about what the alternative should be. I have told him that he must not count his chickens. We all started by tabling amendments that we believed were good starting points. Liberal Democrats tabled their amendments, and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who leads for the Conservative party, tabled an amendment that reflected the respectable and reasonable views of the Conservative party about what the way forward should be.
I have said to the Minister—it is not a secret—that Liberal Democrats are entirely willing to seek to reach an agreement about the form of two questions, and I believe that we will do so. If we do and there can be a widely supported pair of questions, the Minister will not be able to argue that that would be a less democratic and less acceptable alternative. That is why we want the schedule to be deleted for now—so that, on Report, we can return to what the questions are. It means that we will finish the Committee today, I hope not too late. We can then go on to Report, at the earliest, on Wednesday.
I remind the Committee that I had to raise a point of order earlier because the Government seemed to think that Report stages had been now done away with in this age of new Labour Governments. The Leader of the House did not provide for one in her statement on Thursday and, had I not raised it, I am not sure—unless some other colleague had raised it—whether there would have been provision for Report on Wednesday. This is a Committee on the Floor of the House, but the principle applies.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) was diligent enough—perhaps remembering something at the back of his mind—to leave the Committee during the previous debate to check the figures about democratic mandates and democratic authority.
The Minister was gleeful in his misinterpretation of what I said. In the clause 1 stand part debate, I said that the Government did not have majority support among the British electorate. In fact, they do not have majority support among the London electorate either. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Croydon, South, who went to collect the Library research note detailing the results and analysis of the general election. Page 8 shows the share of the vote cast for major parties by standard region—Conservatives 31.2 per cent; Labour 49.5 per cent. I knew that it was close. I was almost deceived by the Minister's suggestion that it was close on the Government's side of the argument, but it was not.
Of course, the Government get the majority of seats in the House because of our silly electoral system, but they do not have majority support among voters in the country, despite the fact that they think that they have a divine right—well, no, I do not really think that they think that. I was getting carried away with the argument, and I withdraw that remark. However, there is a danger that some people think that the Government have huge public support because of opinion poll ratings. In fact, they had the support of fewer than half the electors who voted throughout Britain and fewer than half the electors who voted in London. It would be even less than that as a percentage of the total electorate, given the number of people who did not vote.
I hope that the Government will, possibly uncharacteristically, be modest about the mandate with which they come to the Committee. I hope that they will accept our argument that we could do better in relation to the referendum and better than the question on the ballot paper.
I read out—I could see that it was to the delight of Labour Members—the submissions from Labour party members, branches, constituencies, regions and Members of the European Parliament, whose overwhelming view was not contradicted. I did not hear the Labour party rebutting that and saying what a wonderful set of proposals these were.
While we were voting, I chatted to my assistants, who were diligent workers in Marsham street library on Friday afternoon. I asked them whether what the Minister had said about the overwhelming response being supportive of the Government's proposals was right. I concede that I have not looked at the responses, but three people went on my behalf to do so on Friday afternoon. They were keen to be there first when that library door was opened. In fact, they were the only people there and had the place to themselves. They told me that those submissions did not reveal overwhelming support for the Government's proposals; they revealed a number of different views, as I would have expected. This is the first proposal; it is the consultation.
By Wednesday, when we come to Report, we may get further revelations about what is in the box now that we have found the key and been able to open it. All that I know is that I could—but I am considerate by nature—delight the House by regaling the Minister and his colleagues with the views of Labour party members not only on whether there

should be a directly elected mayor, but on what the ballot paper should say. Almost without exception, all the Labour party submissions from which I quoted in my speech on clause 1 stand part—I have them all with me—argue for more than one question. They argue that because they believe that the electors should decide.
I pay tribute to members of the Labour party, the Conservative party and my party for saying, "Look, we will have a different party position on this and come to different views after our party deliberations, but there is a variety of views in London."
I ask hon. Members to give us an opportunity to look again at the wording on the ballot paper; to look, above all, at the proposal that there should be only one question; and to look at what hon. Members from both sides, including the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), believe is the key question— whether to go for the constitutional innovation of a directly elected mayor. I am not saying that it should not happen; I am not saying that it is nonsense, but it is a constitutional innovation. For heavens sake, let Londoners vote on whether they want it, and the only way to do that is to allow more than one question.
I hope that we shall vote to remove the question currently proposed, to delete the schedule and to allow us to reach agreement on two questions that will enable Londoners— not this place, certainly not the Government—to decide.

Sir Norman Fowler: I shall be brief. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the schedule is unsatisfactory. We have debated the general point, but received only unsatisfactory replies. There are two separate questions on two issues. The proposed question rolls those two issues into one. It asks the public whether they are in favour of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly. That cannot be satisfactory and no one other than Ministers thinks that it is. Nothing could be easier than to divide the question into two to cover an elected mayor and an elected assembly.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey slightly misjudges the Government's position. The Government will not agree to any amendment that is tabled. Whether we can or cannot agree on an amendment is not what the Government are about—they intend to stick absolutely to the formula in the Bill. It would be better if the Minister were entirely frank about that and did not try to base his defence on some technical argument that it is not good in this or that respect. We all know, and he knows above all, that there is no amendment that he, with Labour's majority, will accept.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I raised this point during Second Reading and everything that I have heard in Committee so far has not answered it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question, as posed in the schedule, is ambiguous? The way that it is written is that if there is a yes vote, there will be a separately elected assembly and an elected mayor. There is nothing to stop the assembly voting for the mayor, which is what I understand the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wants, but we do not want. If the Government are to be unambiguous beyond doubt, they must change the form of the question on the ballot paper by inserting, "a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly."

Sir Norman Fowler: As I said on Second Reading, my hon. Friend makes a strong point. If it is to be one


question and if it is to be utterly and absolutely clear, it must say, "a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly." There is no doubt about that.
The Minister will deceive the House if he suggests that there is some form of words that can be invented, agreed and proposed that will satisfy him. He knows as well as I do that he just wants one question. That is why it has been devised and why this schedule is so deeply unsatisfactory. We will vote against it.

Mr. Brooke: We are again debating the single question. During the last Parliament, I participated in many debates with the two Ministers on the Treasury Bench. They have heard me say a lot of things and, I hasten to say, I have heard them say a lot of things. In consequence, I cannot remember whether they have heard me tell the story of another single question, when Professor Joad, as he then was not, sat the scholarship at Oxford and was asked to write for three hours on the question, "Can a good man be happy on the rack?", to which Professor Joad, as he then was not, wrote for a minute and a half the single sentence, "If he were a very good man and it were a very bad rack, yes; if not, no." The referendum question—when we come to the referendum, next May, as it is most likely we shall—is more readily answerable in a minute and a half.
In the debate on clause 1 stand part, I asked the Minister another single question why he was so confident that the Government were right in their single formulation? Although I acknowledge that he may be a very good man, that also remains a very good rack. And answer came there none on that occasion. The debate on the schedule affords him a chance to redeem his earlier silence—now that he has had the opportunity to think about it—and he will still be within Joad's three hours. If the answer is too difficult or will take him more than three hours to answer, I shall ask him a simpler question why is it that—as I mentioned in the debate on Second Reading—clause 1 mentions
a Greater London Authority made up of an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor
whereas, curiously, the schedule asks
Are you in favour of the government's proposals for a Greater London Assembly, made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly?"?
There must be some reason why that curious rearrangement has occurred. I, personally, should be happy to hear it.

Mr, Raynsford: We are debating the single schedule to the Bill, which proposes the form of the question to be voted on in the referendum. It asks Londoners whether they are
in favour of the government's proposals for a Greater London Authority, made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly"—
yes or no?
The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) questioned why the Government did not include the phrase "a directly elected mayor". As I said, at least six weeks before the date of the referendum we will publish a White Paper spelling out in detail the electoral arrangements. All Londoners will have an opportunity to study the White Paper, which we will ensure is made available widely.
We will ensure also that summary copies are distributed to every London household, so that Londoners have the information on which they can form a judgment. They will be able to consider the proposed electoral arrangements and reach their view on whether to vote in favour of them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has answered a question, but not the question asked by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). Simply put, what is the objection to adding—if not in our Committee, in a Committee in the other place—the two words "directly elected"? What is the draftsman's objection to adding those two words?

Mr. Raynsford: The objection is that they are unnecessary. The electoral system will be clearly explained in the White Paper. The question refers to "an elected mayor" and "a separately elected assembly" to make it quite clear that there will be separate elections for the mayor and the assembly.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) raised the interesting image of a good man on the rack. He will recall that Conservative Members recently elected a leader—although I will leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to judge whether he is a good man or whether he is on the rack—but that, subsequently, the Conservative party felt that the wider endorsement of the party membership was required. As I recall it, the mechanism that was proposed was a dual question, merged into one "Are you in favour of the new Leader of the Opposition, and are you in favour of all that he is doing?"
I am sure that Conservative Members, having experienced that single question, will now tell the House that such questions are wrong, and that there should have been two separate questions so mat Conservative party members could have voted separately on the separate propositions. Their case against a single question is pretty unconvincing, because their own practice does not support the case that they have been arguing.
The Government believe that more than one question is not appropriate, and that one question is right. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster rightly asked me to give reasons for our belief, and I propose to do so.
Fundamentally, there are four reasons. The first is that we spelled out our proposals in the Green Paper, and we invited comments on 61 separate questions. Despite the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—I urge his researchers to do a little more thorough digging—the responses to those questions show strong support for the proposal for a separately elected mayor and assembly. It is quite clear that there is such support, and we believe that we are working with the grain of public opinion, as demonstrated by opinion polls.
The second point is that—as I have said repeatedly, including in the debate on clause 1 stand part—there is no simple second question. There are five possible permutations on the question whether to have a mayor and an assembly first, to have a mayor and an assembly, each separately elected; secondly, to have a mayor alone, with no assembly; thirdly, to have an assembly alone, with no mayor; fourthly, to have a mayor with an assembly comprised of borough leaders—which is the Opposition's


preferred formulation; and fifthly, to have a mayor elected out of an assembly. The permutations raise five separate issues, and no single formulation has yet been produced to satisfy all of them.
I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the interesting progress of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey on the issue over the course of this Committee stage. He started by making his own proposal on a two-question referendum—which, as was demonstrated in last Wednesday's debate, has serious flaws. His proposal simply reflected the Liberal Democrats' view that the mayor should be elected from within the assembly—which was totally unacceptable to the Conservative party.
Recognising Conservative Members' opposition and attempting to gain their support for his proposition, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey expressed sympathy for the Conservatives' formulation of two questions, despite the fact that the Conservative party's proposals would open the door to an outcome—a mayor without an assembly—that the Liberal Democrats totally oppose and which virtually everyone who has examined the issue realises is completely unrealistic.
Subsequently, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made what he called a "blind offer" to support whichever two options arose as favourites in the consultation, without even knowing what those options might be. His researchers have been diligently looking through the consultation responses, so perhaps we will soon hear what those options are, although we have not heard them yet.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey finally offered to go and think about another possible question and agree the wording with the official Opposition. Significantly, no agreed wording has yet appeared, although it may. After all this time and consideration, however, Opposition Members' inability to come up with one simple alternative second question speaks volumes for the practicalities involved.

Sir Norman Fowler: Will the Minister confirm that, whichever two questions might be proposed, the Government would oppose them and insist on one question?

Mr. Raynsford: No, I will not. I have made it quite clear that we are proceeding in an appropriate and considered manner, examining the options in the light of our manifesto, of responses to the consultation and of the enormous practical difficulties that those who argue for second questions are having in devising an agreed formula. As I said, there is no agreed simple second question. If the right hon. Gentleman can propose such a question, I shall happily give way to him so that he can tell us what it is.

Sir Norman Fowler: Willingly or not, the hon. Gentleman is making an important statement. He is saying that, in principle, he is prepared to accept two questions. That is my understanding of what he has just said.

Mr. Raynsford: I noted that the right hon. Gentleman declined entirely to offer an alternative second question, thus proving my point. The Government are pragmatic and not dogmatic about the matter. We said that we believe that a single question is correct and proper, but we consulted and listened to people's views. We have received 1,200 responses to our consultation, some of which have dealt with the issues, although others have not. We have also talked at endless meetings. I have spoken to very large numbers of people, and I have been entirely unconvinced of the merits of a second question. That is the position.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister made a very clear statement, for which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and I am grateful. We will go away, do our bit and be constructive about it. I give the Minister an undertaking that, with the support of Labour Members if possible, we will devise a two-question option that will be ready in time for deliberations in the other place, if not in time for the Report stage—which we may not have, for reasons that the Minister knows as well as I do.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman made the same proposal last week, but, in the five days since then, nothing has been forthcoming. I do not blame him for that—he probably has other things to do—but if the matter was such an overriding priority, I do not doubt that a form of words that satisfied the hon. Gentleman could have been included in an amendment. So far, the evidence is that no formulation has been devised that encapsulates the varied concerns of the people who believe that there might be a second question.
My third point—this is in response to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—is that some of the permutations would be unworkable. In my view, it would be improper for a Government to put forward a proposition that they believed to be unworkable—that would be constitutional nonsense.
Fourthly, we are trying to present to the people of London, in line with our manifesto commitment, a clear proposition on which they can make a considered judgment. It is our considered view that the question as spelled out in the schedule does that. I warmly commend the schedule.

Question put, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 297, Noes 157.

Division No. 94]
[6.40 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barron, Kevin


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bayley, Hugh


Ainger, Nick
Beard, Nigel


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Alexander, Douglas
Begg, Miss Anne


Allen, Graham
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bennett, Andrew F


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Benton, Joe


Ashton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald


Atkins, Charlotte
Best, Harold


Austin, John
Boateng, Paul


Banks, Tony
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Barnes, Harry
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)






Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Buck, Ms Karen
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burden, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Burgon, Colin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Byers, Stephen
Hanson, David


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Healey, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cann, Jamie
Hepburn, Stephen


Caplin, Ivor
Heppell, John


Casale, Roger
Hesford, Stephen


Cawsey, Ian
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hill, Keith


Chaytor, David
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hoey, Kate



Home Robertson, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Ann
Hoyle, Lindsay


Coaker, Vernon
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coleman, Iain
Humble, Mrs Joan


Colman, Tony
Hurst, Alan


Connarty, Michael
Hutton, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Illsley, Eric


Cooper, Yvette
Ingram, Adam


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Crausby, David
Jamieson, David


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jenkins, Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W amp; Hessle)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)



Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davidson, Ian
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dawson, Hilton
Keen, Alan (Feltham amp; Heston)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keen, Ann (Brentford amp; lsleworth)


Denham, John
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dismore, Andrew
Kemp, Fraser


Dobbin, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kidney, David


Doran, Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dowd, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby amp; Kenilworth)


Drew, David
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Drown, Ms Julia
Laxton, Bob


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lepper, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Leslie, Christopher


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Levitt, Tom


Edwards, Huw
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Efford, Clive
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Linton, Martin


Ennis, Jeff
Livingstone, Ken


Fatchett, Derek
Lock, David


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McAllion, John


Flint, Caroline
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Galloway, George
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gardiner, Barry
Macdonald, Calum


Gerrard, Neil
McFall, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mclsaac, Shona


Godsiff, Roger
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mackinlay, Andrew





McNulty, Tony
Sawford, Phil


MacShane, Denis
Sedgemore, Brian


Mactaggart, Fiona
Shaw, Jonathan


McWalter, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mandelson, Peter
Singh, Marsha


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe amp; Lunesdale)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Meale, Alan
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Milbum, Alan
Squire, Ms Rachel


Miller, Andrew
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stevenson, George


Morley, Elliot
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mountford, Kali
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mudie, George
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stringer, Graham


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Norris, Dan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



Olner, Bill
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pendry, Tom
Timms, Stephen


Perham, Ms Linda
Tipping, Paddy


Pickthall, Colin
Todd, Mark


Pike, Peter L
Touhig, Don


Plaskitt, James
Trickett, Jon


Pollard, Kerry
Truswell, Paul


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Walley, Ms Joan


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Ward, Ms Claire


Primarolo, Dawn
Wareing, Robert N


Prosser, Gwyn
Watts, David


Purchase, Ken
White, Brian


Quin, Ms Joyce
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Quinn, Lawrie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rapson, Syd



Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wills, Michael


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Winnick, David


Rogers, Allan
Wise, Audrey


Rooker, Jeff
Wood, Mike


Rooney, Terry
Wray, James


Rowlands, Ted
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Roy, Frank
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wyatt, Derek


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Salter, Martin
Mr. Greg Pope and


Savidge, Malcolm
Mr. Clive Betts.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Brady, Graham


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Brazier, Julian


Baldry, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Browning, Mrs Angela


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Blunt, Crispin
Burnett, John


Body, Sir Richard
Burns, Simon


Boswell, Tim
Burstow, Paul






Butterfill, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cable, Dr Vincent
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
MacKay, Andrew


Cash, William
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David


Chidgey, David
Malins, Humfrey


Clappison, James
Maples, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
May, Mrs Theresa


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll amp; Bute)


Cotter, Brian
Moore, Michael


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Nicholls, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Öpik, Lembit


Duncan, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Page, Richard


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Paice, James


Evans, Nigel
Paterson, Owen


Faber, David
Pickles, Eric


Fabricant, Michael
Prior, David


Fallon, Michael
Randall, John


Flight, Howard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Rendel, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Fraser, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gale, Roger
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Garnier, Edward
St Aubyn, Nick


Gibb, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gill, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shepherd, Richard


Gray, James
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Green, Damian
Soames, Nicholas


Greenway, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Grieve, Dominic
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Hague, Rt Hon William
Streeter, Gary


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Stunell, Andrew


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Harris, Dr Evan
Syms, Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hayes, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher amp; Walton)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heath, David (Somerton amp; Frome)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Tavler Sir Teddy


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Thompson, William


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Townend, John


Horam, John
Tredinnick David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tyler, Paul


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)




Tyrie, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wallace, James


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Walter, Robert


Jenkin, Bernard
Waterson, Nigel


Johnson Smith,
Webb, Steve


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Whittingdale, John


Key, Robert
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Wilkinson, John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Willetts, David


Kirkwood, Archy
Willis, Phil


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wilshire, David


Lansley, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Leigh, Edward
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Letwin, Oliver
Yeo, Tim


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lidington, David



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Mr. Adrian Sanders and


Loughton, Tim
Mr. Donald Gorrie.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule agreed to

Clause 2

ENTITLEMENT TO VOTE

Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, after 'borough', insert
'and in the district councils of Broxbourne, Elmbridge, Epping Forest, Epsom and Ewell, Hertsmere, Reigate and Banstead and Spelthorne.'
This is a probing amendment, dealing with an anomaly arising from the geographical coverage of the Metropolitan police, which comprises two distinct areas. The first is London, which has just over 7 million residents. Then there is the area outside London, with approximately 500,000 residents, which includes parts of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey, but not Kent or Buckinghamshire.
The origins of that situation are historical. There has been no serious complaint about it because the administration of the Metropolitan police is non-political. However, for the first time since 1829, the Metropolitan police area is to be brought under political control. The Green Paper says that it will be controlled by
a police authority with a majority of elected representatives."
It will be more appropriate to consider the merits of that when we come to debate the substantive Bill next year.
The new police committee will be dominated by London members—at least half will be London assemblymen—whose thinking will be inappropriate in all respects for the home counties. It is important to remember that the parts of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey concerned are not suburbs but rural areas, which require a special type of policing that is not necessarily the strong point of an inner-city assemblyman.
Some of the people who will be affected by the proposals are not eligible to vote in the referendum. The Government are introducing a change that will be London dominated. Those who will dominate will be consulted in the referendum but those in the home counties will not. That is undemocratic and unconstitutional, raising doubts about the effectiveness of crime fighting in the home counties. We cannot put up with a new method of policing being imposed, changing a system that has existed for more than 160 years, without giving the people affected a say through the ballot box.
There is another flaw. I should like to put this in as a late bid in the consultation process. I am aware of the Government's proposals and I expect the Minister to reply that he has consulted the districts and there will be one representative from those areas on the new police committee. However, in the debate the Friday before last on the policing of London, the Home Secretary said—I hope that the Minister is listening to this, because it is an important point—that there would be a police committee of 25. The Green Paper says that it will be a committee of 21. I presume that the Home Secretary has the last word, so let us assume that there will be a committee of 25. One representative in 25 to speak for more than 500,000 people is not enough.
The representation of Scotland and Wales in this House has established the principle of minorities being over-represented. The number of people living outside the Greater London authority area is 6.6 per cent. of the number living inside. To save hon. Members getting out their calculators, I can tell them that that should equate to 1.65 members on the police committee.
I put it to the Minister that there should be at least two representatives from those areas on the police committee. I suggest that one of those should represent the larger area, which is in Surrey, and that the other one should represent the districts in Essex and Hertfordshire. That would be fair and democratic. I realise that if the Minister accepted the idea, he would be conceding that there was someone fighting for his or her own patch, which he has not been too happy about before. I have tabled the amendment in a constructive spirit, however, and I hope that the Minister will consider the points raised seriously

7 pm

Mr. David Wilshire: As Spelthorne is mentioned in the amendment, I feel that it is necessary to explain the local point of view. I am glad, for reasons that will become clear in a moment, that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said that his was a probing amendment.
On this issue at least, I am more than happy to take the Government at their word. They have explained that they want to give local people a direct say in the affairs of the Metropolitan police; I accept that assurance in good faith. The Government say that they believe that it is right to hold a referendum of those who will be affected by the proposed changes; I cannot disagree with that. I do not object to either of those two expressed aims. The Bill as it stands, however, will not achieve either of those aims for my constituents. Almost all my constituents—I shall come back to the remainder later—are policed by the Metropolitan police, yet they will not be consulted about whether they want a police authority.
The amendment offers one solution to the problem. There must, indeed, be a solution and I urge the Government to find it. As my hon. Friend's amendment is a probing amendment, I am happy to support it, but it offers a solution which will not appeal to my constituents. If there is one thing that unites the overwhelming majority of my constituents, whoever they vote for, it is that they want nothing to do with London. The past 40 years have been spent fighting to stay out of the wretched place. When Middlesex was absorbed, we were the bit that managed to persuade the Government of the day to leave us out. Every time anything is suggested that somehow or other involves us with London, we smell a rat. Whoever the Member of Parliament for Spelthorne is, he or she will be here objecting.
We have every reason to be suspicious of the Bill and of the solution being proposed in the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said that the amendment concerned some areas of the home counties and of Surrey. In our minds, we are still Middlesex and not Surrey. If there are to be extra places on the new authority, Middlesex will stake its claim and will not want to be lumped in with Surrey.
On Second Reading, I obtained an assurance from the Minister that he had no intention of tinkering with the Greater London boundaries. I should be grateful if he would say that again tonight, tomorrow and the day after because I have every intention of holding him to that promise permanently. I hope that he does not see it as a convenient way in which to shut me up for a moment. My constituents are implacably opposed to the alteration of the boundaries as a way in which to solve the anomaly.
I believe that there are only two possible ways forward. We could, as suggested in the amendment, involve my constituents in the referendum so that we could be

consulted in accordance with the Government's aims. I suspect, however, that even if the Government were minded to agree to that, they would be forced to admit that they had to have a separate question because the last thing that my constituents want is to be consulted on anything other than policing. If the Government will not have two questions on the referendum paper, they are unlikely to be prepared to have three, one of which would be a special question for Spelthorne. That solution would not commend itself to the Government.
There are other issues, such as the powers of the authority and its structure, but those are matters best left for the main Bill. I give notice that I shall want to discuss what the authority will do vis-a-vis my constituency, but I shall leave the matter for tonight.
The only other solution that I can see—I am not necessarily commending it to the Minister—is to review the boundaries of the Metropolitan police area. On Second Reading, the Minister made it clear that he had no plans to review the boundaries at the moment. I found that comment both reassuring and disconcerting. When does "at the moment" cease?
There is a precedent. When the local government boundaries were changed in the former Middlesex, Surrey and Berkshire areas, part of a village that I represent— part of the village of Colnbrook—was moved into Slough. The result was that that part of my constituency was moved into the Thames Valley police area, so there is a precedent for looking at the boundaries of the Metropolitan police district.
I ask the Minister to consider that possibility. I am not sure that it would be wholly popular with all my constituents, but it does offer a solution to a genuine problem. We have to find a solution. We cannot have people in London being consulted about the policing of areas outside London when the local people are not to be consulted.
The amendment is a probing one. I hope that it is not pressed to a Division because that would give me some difficulty. I believe, however, that the spirit of the amendment is absolutely right. I urge the Minister to think again and I hope that he will agree to do so. I hope that at some stage, having thought about the matter, he will tell us what his conclusions are.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Like the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I believe that the amendment raises the right questions but comes up with the wrong answer. The hon. Gentleman probably came up with the right solution, which is that the county areas should be removed from the Metropolitan police district and allowed to join the county police forces with which they have more characteristics in common. That seems an admirably sensible solution. It is clearly not an easy solution because it would involve unscrambling management structures and some major reorganisation within the Metropolitan police. Discussions and negotiations would have to be entered into. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion, however, seems sensible.
I hope that the Minister, in replying, will take into account the fact that there is another boundary anomaly that may have been overlooked. I am referring not to the far-flung suburbs, but to the heart of London. There will be two police authorities, one for the Metropolitan police and the other for the City of London police. That will be


a continuing anomaly and I believe that it would make a great deal of sense for the police authority for Greater London to cover the two police forces. There is no justification for having a separate structure for the City of London police.
In broad terms, we welcome the substance of the Government's approach to the creation of an elected police authority, which is a big step forward. We are aware that there are different ways in which to do that. One way, which I believe the Government envisage, is to create a police authority on provincial English lines. That would be very welcome. The other way is the American city model, which is mayor-dominated. I intervened in the debate on the Metropolitan police 10 days ago, and the Home Secretary reassured us that the American model was not envisaged—that the Government envisaged a police authority in which the Greater London authority would be the dominant body and that the mayor would not interfere with operational decisions. That reassurance should go a long way to removing the fears that people may have about the new structure.

Mr. Raynsford: We have had a short and interesting debate about the referendum franchise. I do not accept that the franchise should be extended, as proposed by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), to residents of districts that lie outside Greater London even though, in certain instances, policing in those areas may be the responsibility of the Metropolitan police.
It is right and proper that London residents should vote on proposals about the way in which London is governed, and the Bill provides for that. Policing is just one of the proposed functions of the Greater London authority. There are others. For example, London's transport will be one of the major responsibilities of the new authority. As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the London Underground network goes beyond the Greater London boundary to Amersham, Chesham, Chalfont and other parts of Buckinghamshire, for example. However, the amendment does not seek to allow residents of those areas the right to vote because they might be affected by decisions taken in respect of London's transport. Therefore, the amendment is partial in that it relates to only one function of the Greater London authority and not to its overall responsibility.
I do not agree that the residents of Elmbridge or Reigate and Banstead should influence the way in which the people of London are governed. That seems a curious proposition. What the Government are proposing would not disadvantage the people in the areas to which the amendment refers. Our proposal would bring the Metropolitan police closer in practice to police forces and police authorities elsewhere in the country.
At the moment, residents of Spelthorne, Hertsmere and other areas mentioned in the amendment have no say in the way in which they are policed. The Home Secretary is a police authority and local authorities are not represented on the Metropolitan police committee. The Government propose a democratically elected police authority that will include representatives of London local authorities. We propose in the consultation paper that there should also be representation for the outer London boroughs—I should say the out-of-London boroughs—that are served by the Metropolitan police.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary commented on the issue on 14 November during a debate on the policing of London. The hon. Member for Croydon, South referred to his remarks and implied that he had suggested that there would be a police authority of 25 members. That is not the case. I quote from Hansard
We propose a police authority of 21 members, and it is proportionate to have one representative from the outer areas … We remain open to representations about the exact balance of elected members. However, as we have found in other areas—for example, in the Thames Valley, which combines three counties—there are always pressures to increase the total number of members. That desire must be balanced against the need to create a body that is small enough to work efficiently and effectively."—[Official Report, 14 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 1141.]
That is the Government's position. We have not decided; we have consulted. We have heard the representations that were made in response to the consultation paper and I have heard the speeches this evening. No decisions have yet been taken, but we have to balance the competing claims of areas that may want representation with the need to keep the authority to a businesslike size.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South suggested that there should be one representative from the south and one from the north so that they could each fight for their own patch. However, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) clearly wanted to have nothing to do with that arrangement. I should also remind the hon. Member for Croydon, South that the north includes parts of Hertsmere, Broxbourne and Epping Forest—three separate authorities. How could each of them fight for their own patch? In the south there are Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, and Reigate and Banstead, so any representative would have to cover a number of different areas.

Mr. Wilshire: I thank the Minister for making a magnificent case for having five extra members. Does he not consider that he has just done exactly that?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening when I quoted my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the need to keep the body to a reasonable and businesslike size and not to allow it to be enlarged unreasonably.
As I am sure the hon. Member for Croydon, South is aware, the Metropolitan police operational area does not extend across all the districts that he has identified. That reduces the justification for his proposals and makes them far less practicable. I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman would not wish to suggest that the referendum franchise should be extended to cover people who have no interest whatever in the outcome, but that would be the implication of his proposals. The amendment is impracticable and in many ways undesirable.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) referred to the City of London police. I can assure him that because the amendment and clause 2 refer to the right to vote in a referendum, residents in the City will be entitled to vote. Obviously, wider issues about policing in the City are a separate matter and are not within the remit of the clause.
The amendment is ill-conceived and impracticable and I urge the hon. Member for Croydon, South to withdraw it.

Mr. Ottaway: The amendment may be impracticable, but it is not ill-conceived. Although everyone seems to


relish shredding my amateur drafting, an important point has been made. I welcome the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who accepted the spirit of the amendment and agreed with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who said that the solution may be to take the police out of the Metropolitan area. I did not realise that that was Liberal Democrat policy, but I was grateful for the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
7.15 pm
The Minister used as an illustration the fact that Chesham and Amersham would be affected by some of the proposals in the Green Paper, but were not being consulted. However, his argument about consultation and influence cuts both ways. As the Minister is aware, there is virtually no underground in south London—all the trains run overground—and local authorities have absolutely no say in the operation of the railways in Greater London.
The Minister missed the fundamental point of the amendment when he said that people in the five districts affected have no say in the way in which they are policed. That is not the point. We are saying that they have no say in the change in the way in which they are policed. The Minister quoted the Home Secretary in the debate a week last Friday. I suspect that the Home Secretary diligently rechecked his notes and corrected his speech in Hansard, but if the Minister would care to check the tape, he will find the Home Secretary did say that there would be 25 members of the police authority. I remember it because I was so struck by the difference between the two figures. I would not want to mislead the House, but I accept that the Home Secretary has perhaps changed his mind and the figure is 21.
The Minister also pointed out that if there were two representatives on the body, the boroughs in the north and the south would be fighting for the right to nomination. Under the Government's proposals, the five districts all over London will be fighting for the nomination so at least my amendment would go some way towards resolving the issue.
As I said at the outset, it is a probing amendment and we shall return to the point it raised when the substantive Bill is debated in a year's time. Under the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I wish to raise an issue concerning access to voting in the referendum that will affect people living in Greater London who wish to participate and cast a vote expressing their opinion about the future government of London. I refer to the many disabled people who live in London, and I have a few questions for the Minister.
My first question concerns the publication of the White Paper. I welcome the fact that a summary will be circulated to every household, but will there be accessible versions of that summary in Braille, large print and audio format to make it available to more people? It is a relatively small step which would send an important signal to disabled people in London that the Government

wish to make sure that they have a chance to express their views and understand the case that the Government are making for changes in London's government.
I want to ask a couple of questions about voting. Will people who are unable—as they often are in respect of other elections—to cast their vote in person, due to sickness, disability or holidays, be able to cast a postal vote so that they can express their view on the future government of London?
More important, the referendum gives the Government a golden opportunity to innovate and experiment with the provision of access for blind and partially sighted people. The referendum provides a controlled opportunity to ensure that such people are able to attend a polling station and vote unaided. At the moment, all too often—as was evidenced in the recent general election—blind and partially sighted people who vote in person have to go through the indignity of expressing their voting intention to someone else and having it marked on the ballot paper for them.
It may be of interest to hon. Members that I am promoting a private Member's Bill, the Elections (Visually Impaired Voters) Bill, which is due to have its Second Reading on 13 February. That will be considered too late to have an effect on this Bill. I hope that when the Government have reflected on what I have said, they will take the opportunity in another place to table amendments to allow the law to be changed, so that returning officers can use large print in polling stations to enable people to choose unaided whether to vote yes or no. I hope that the Government will reflect on the possibility of experimenting with Braille templates, given the simple question to which they are passionately committed.
Such measures would ensure that the outcome of the referendum—even if we do not agree with it—is at least inclusive. I hope that the Government will consider wording to ensure that there is no doubt in the minds of returning officers when the process is set up across London. I will be very interested to hear whether Ministers are prepared to take such measures to ensure that London's disabled people can participate fully in the debate.

The Minister for Transport in London(Ms Glenda Jackson): I am delighted that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has raised an issue which is clearly of particular concern to him and his party. As I am sure he is aware, the issue is also a very high priority for the Government. The Green Paper was made available, as I am sure he is also aware, in eight languages other than English.
The hon. Member raised a point to do with people who are visually impaired. The proposals will be published not only in Braille but in large print, and will be available on cassette. It is our intention to ensure that the summary of the White Paper is available in similar formats.
The hon. Member asked whether postal votes will be available. I reassure him again that, yes, they will. We shall make particular efforts to ensure that everyone is aware of their rights in the referendum.
The hon. Member raised some very interesting points about what he would like to be in the Bill. It is certainly our intention to examine those proposals. It would be worth examining them and putting them in the White


Paper. The Government are clear that, when we speak about equality, we genuinely mean it. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have already taken many steps to forward the equality of people with disabilities— whatever they may be. He is right to say that there can be no area more important to people with disabilities than equality in exercising what I would regard as one of their most precious possessions: the franchise.
Clause 2 defines the classes of person entitled to vote in the referendum. They will include those entitled to vote at a local government election in any London borough and those entitled to vote as residents at a ward election in the City of London. It is the usual practice for local elections that the eligibility requirement should be that of residency. We intend to follow that practice in the referendum.
It is a clearly established principle that the entitlement to vote in a referendum is also derived from residency. That principle was reaffirmed in the referendums earlier in the year in Scotland and Wales. We intend that the GLA should be elected by London residents. That was made clear in the Green Paper. It makes sense that people eligible to vote in the election of the GLA should be the ones who decide whether it should be established.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On the issue concerning wards of the City of London, I declare an interest. As a member of a set of chambers in the Temple, I have a vote. All members of chambers in the Inner Temple and the Middle Temple are on the electoral roll of the City—even though, technically, the Temple is not in the City, which is a double nonsense.
I am not trying to be provocative, but I must point out the anomaly. I have always felt embarrassed that such a tradition continues. People who have votes in wards of the City, which include the Temple outside the City, are regarded as electors for all London purposes. I am in favour of the principle enunciated by the Minister that franchise is based on residency. Clearly, votes from the Temple are not residential—although one or two people live there, the votes are generally business votes.
I hope that at some stage—it may not be possible during the passage of this Bill—we get to grips with such an anomaly, since it means that there are two sorts of voter in the same referendum. There are people who vote because they live in London—the Minister for London and Construction, the Minister for Transport in London and I have our homes in London, and that is where we vote—and people who vote simply because they work in London. We clearly need to address that.

Ms Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for raising that point. I reassure him that the only criterion that will allow someone to vote in the referendum is that of residency. We have been in very close consultation with the City of London corporation to ensure that the franchise for the referendum is based on fair, uniform entitlements across the City and the 32 boroughs.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that he had a right to vote because he is a member of chambers. It is very clear that the only entitlement to vote in the referendum—both in the wards of the City and across 32 boroughs—is through residency.

Mr. Hughes: I am very grateful to the Minister. She has taken my point. The Government have clearly been seized of it. I am grateful that, in this context at least, the anomaly has been resolved. We shall clearly have to return to the issue in other contexts.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

COUNTING OFFICERS

Mr. Burstow: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert
'but shall not so certify until after the declaration of the results of all local government elections held in Greater London on the same day as the referendum'.
This is a fairly narrow and technical amendment which is intended to put into proper order the way in which the results of the local elections and the referendum should be dealt with. It is the Liberal Democrats' view that London borough election results should take precedence over the Greater London referendum, not least because we will be electing people who will be exercising authority and responsibility on behalf of Londoners there and then. The people who elect them deserve to know the results sooner rather than later.
We will have to wait and see whether excitement about the referendum is stimulated by the Government campaign in support of it, but the results can wait, although that might deny the Government some publicity opportunities, until we have had the London borough results. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, because it is a modest amendment that will enable the London boroughs to continue their good work and not be delayed by the referendum votes being counted before the local election votes.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I have difficulty accepting the scenario advanced by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), that the voters of London will have a priority in knowing the results of their choices. I cannot believe, given the enormous public support for the restoration of a democratic voice to Londoners—which has been denied them for so long—that they would not wish to know the results of the referendum in the same way that they will eagerly anticipate the results of the local elections.
We see no good reason for the legislation to stipulate that the local election votes should be counted first. Nor would we expect to provide that the referendum should be counted first before the borough polls can be declared. Detailed count arrangements will rightly be a matter for returning officers and counting officers in the light of


legislative provision and any directions from the chief counting officer. We are working closely with returning officers and local electoral administrators.

Mr. Burstow: Can the Minister assure us that no pressure will be applied to persuade counting officers to count the referendum first, if elected members wished to see the London borough elections counted first?

Ms Jackson: on mature reflection, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to withdraw that question. The implications for the standards and approach to their task of counting officers and those who count the votes are unreasonable and unfair. I cannot envisage a situation in which any such pressure would be brought to bear. Perhaps more importantly, I cannot envisage a situation, should such pressure be brought to bear, in which the officers responsible for the proper conduct of the count would give way to it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that that is the case. I wish to ask another question. I am told on reliable authority that, in the Welsh referendum, the order of declaration of the results was decided by the Secretary of State for Wales. At his express instigation, the Carmarthen result was held back until last. May we have an absolute assurance that the announcement of the results will also not be the subject of any political interference?

Ms Jackson: With respect, we had an example of the sort of information that the hon. Gentleman said had come from a reliable source when he claimed that Greater London Labour party members had an overwhelming antipathy to the Government's proposals. I am not casting any particular slur on what he has just asked, but I merely remark on what the House is privileged to know from experience.
I repeat that I cannot conceive of any scenario in which those who are responsible for conducting the count, and the post-voting process, would fall victim to undue political pressure. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I cannot conceive of any such pressure being brought to bear to delay the results of the local elections or the referendum.
The grant money that we will provide to local authorities under clause 5 will, among other things, cover the cost of hiring extra counters to count the referendum alongside the local elections. That seems to us the proper way to proceed. There will inevitably be a time penalty arising from the separation of ballot papers for the two polls, but we have had no indication that those who will be charged with carrying out the count think that that will lead to excessive delay. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman, and that, in the light of what I have said, he will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for the reassurance that she has offered, in her confirmation of the additional resources that will be granted to enable the counts to be expedited, and in her comments that no political influence will be brought to bear on the conduct of the counts. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—

'(4A) The Chief Counting Officer shall not certify the total of votes cast for each answer under subsection (4) above unless at least 50 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 30, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
'(4B) The Chief Counting Officer shall not certify the total of votes cast for each answer under subsection (4) above unless at least 30 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted in favour of the government's proposals'.

Mr. Ottaway: These two amendments would have the important effect of imposing a threshold, before a valid referendum result was achieved, of 50 per cent. for turnout and 30 per cent. for saying yes. We want reform and we recognise that there is a case for a mayor for London. We want a mayor and we want an assembly, but we want an assembly of a different composition from that proposed by the Government. We want an assembly in which the boroughs are more involved. We want the thinking to come from the bottom up and to involve people from the boroughs on a formal basis. We are opposed to the Government's thinking that GLA policy will pass from the Government down to the assembly.
We accept that the Government are unlikely to adopt our proposals, given their majority. However, whatever is decided, the assembly must have legitimacy. The verdict, whatever it is, must be widely supported by Londoners. It will be valid, in our judgment, only if 50 per cent. of London's voters go to the polls. That is a critical figure, because if that threshold is not reached, the majority of Londoners will not have expressed an opinion in the referendum. Accepting the amendment will be the only way for the Government to send a signal to Londoners to reassure them that the changes proposed will have a strong mandate.
The referendum is a test of public opinion and it is essential that the outcome on 7 May is decisive, conclusive and final. It is equally essential that the answer comes from the majority. It is reasonable and right that the arrangements for the referendum send the signal that change cannot happen unless some 2.5 million of London's voters actually vote. The arrangements should ensure that if that turnout is not reached, the changes should not happen. If the voters stay at home, their silence should signal rejection. The Government should not be able to proceed and declare the referendum a success unless it receives that essential mandate.
We require a second threshold. A minimum of 30 per cent. of the voters should say yes. That would mean that1.5million out of London's 5 million voters would say yes. London has 7 million residents and it would be wrong to claim a mandate if fewer than 1.5 million of them had voted yes. That would be unacceptable. The Minister has claimed a mandate, based on the turnout in the general election and, according to my research in the Library,1.6 million people voted for the Labour party in London. If he is not so sure that those 1.6 million people will vote for him again, why on earth should not he accept the amendment? If they do not turn out to vote, it will be a sign of disapproval.
Is the Minister saying that those people turned out at the general election but are not inclined to do so for his proposals for a Greater London authority? If so, he is


wrong to claim that he has a mandate for his proposals. Anything less than those 1.6 million votes will show disapproval and rejection by the electorate. The referendum should not go ahead with so little support.
After all, what does the Minister have to lose? Frankly, he will lose his credibility and his mandate. Failure to accept the amendments will show a loss of confidence on his part and will be an admission that he is frightened to test public opinion. Indeed, it will be a contempt of the democratic process. The Prime Minister is on the record as saying that he is not a great proponent of government by referendum, so the Minister should be keen to persuade him that he is wrong and that the people of London will turn out in their millions to support his proposals.

Mr. Raynsford: They will.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister says that they will; is he saying that 1.5 million will turn out? He is uncharacteristically silent on that point. He should be keen to allay the Prime Minister's fears. If he cannot demonstrate that the people of London will turn out in their millions, he should accept the amendment and send the right signal to the Prime Minister and to Londoners.
By accepting our proposals the Government would effectively be saying, "If enough of you want reform, you should have it; if you stay at home, we get the message."

Mr. Burstow: We oppose the amendments. We do not believe that there is a need for a threshold. It is also important to put it on the record that no one on either side of the argument should be able to suborn and claim those people who do not vote in the referendum. We must ensure that we have a debate that enthuses people enough to make them go and cast their votes. We must remove the barriers that stop people exercising their democratic right to make a choice.
Liberal Democrat Members disagree fundamentally with the Government about the question that they have decided should be put to the people of London, but we believe that it is important to have a campaign that gets people to go out and cast their votes. I hope that it will become clearer, when the White Paper is published, exactly what powers will really reside with the authority. That, as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said in our first day in Committee, is what will really enthuse people.
People want to know what difference the London authority will make to their lives. That is what we need to communicate. Thresholds are not an answer; they are a device proposed by a party with no sympathy with the idea of a referendum in the first place as Conservative Members said earlier today, when they had a mandate they abolished the Greater London council without the need for a referendum. That is why I and my party do not support the idea of thresholds.

Mr. Brooke: The Minister for London has heard me saying on two previous occasions that I canvassed for 120 hours on the doorsteps of my constituency in the

general election campaign—I shall now tell him for the third time and, as the Bellman said in "The Hunting of the Snark",
What I tell you three times is true"—
and that during that entire time not one person asked me about a Greater London authority and strategic government in London. Incidentally, in that time I did not see one canvasser for or representative of any party other than mine, which is perhaps why I am sitting here today.
My parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), said on Second Reading that they talk of nothing else in her constituency, although I acknowledge that she said that that involved the time since the general election campaign, as well as the campaign itself.
The royal borough—the Chelsea authority—is separated from the City of Westminster by the River Westbourne, which now flows underground. I am separated from the constituency of the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North by a series of Westbourne roads. I find it puzzling that there should be such divergence between the casual conversations in our two constituencies.
I mention that in the context of the test that the threshold would set the Government, who have consistently said that there is overwhelming enthusiasm for their proposal. In a recent debate, the Minister for London mentioned again the 82 per cent. approval in an opinion poll and the 86 per cent. approval by businesses in London. He must be expecting an overwhelming outpouring of votes next May.
7.45 pm
In the schedule stand part debate, the Minister for London said that I would not expect the Government to come up with an unworkable suggestion; I certainly would not. I earlier quoted his remarks at column 416 last Wednesday to the effect that the Government would make absolutely sure that they proposed something that would work and, as he knows, I have enormous trust and confidence in him. I hope that he will have the same trust and confidence in the people of London, and will expect them to turn out to vote.
In those circumstances, the Minister for London should accept the amendment. If he does not, perhaps his confidence in the vote in the referendum is not so great as I previously imagined. In that case, I would begin to wonder whether his proposal for a Greater London authority, in the form that he has advocated, might not be as strong as he has sought to persuade us that it is.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Whether the right hon. Gentleman says something three times or 30 times, it is always well worth hearing, but on this occasion I disagree with his argument. It would perhaps be churlish to suggest that the GLA was never mentioned in those hundreds of hours of campaigning because the driving force for so many people, not only in London but throughout the country, was to get rid of the incumbent Conservative Government.

Mr. John Randall: A few months after the general election, in the Uxbridge by-election, when


such questions were not on people's minds, I had exactly the same reaction as my right hon. Friend: London governance was not mentioned once.

Ms Jackson: Presumably because it was not raised by the hon. Gentleman—and I well understand his reluctance, as his party has come rather late to the idea of restoring a democratic voice to London. As my hon. Friend the Minister for London said on Second Reading, there has been a conversion; but from what I have heard in Committee so far, it seems to me that the problem for Conservative Members is that they are on the horns of a dilemma their basic belief, as shown by their action in abolishing the GLC without any consultation or legitimacy whatever, is that the people of London should not have their democratic voice restored; but they realise that, although they campaigned ferociously against my party's proposals, the idea of restoring that democratic voice is popular in London.
I was left breathless by the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who believes that setting a threshold would impart legitimacy to the referendum. It is strange that he should breathe the word "legitimacy" when the purpose of the Government's action is to restore a democratic voice to London and when his party abolished the GLC without any consultation. I also found interesting his argument that if people stay at home it will be a proof of failure—in a sense, a no vote. If memory serves me correctly, at the time of the Housing Act 1988 and the setting up of tenants' choice, the Conservative Government argued that those who did not vote could be deemed to support the proposal.
The Government totally oppose the sort of franchises and artificial thresholds proposed in the amendments. There is no substantial case for what is essentially a wrecking device. If one amendment suggests that a 50 per cent. threshold is necessary, while another proposes a 30 per cent. threshold, no great principled case is involved.
As with all pre-legislative referendums, this one will be advisory. The referendum is a device employed by Parliament to test the views of the public on a clear point of principle, in this case, whether Londoners favour our plans for a Greater London authority. It will be for Parliament to reflect on the result of the referendum. That is why the insertion of any form of threshold would be inappropriate. The people of London will vote in the referendum, and Parliament will take that vote into account.
Despite the arguments of the hon. Member for Croydon, South, the Government are confident—I am pleased that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) is equally confident—of a particularly high turnout in May. Every opinion poll that asks Londoners directly shows that they categorically and overwhelmingly favour our proposals. Even in the event of a low turnout, there is no case for allowing those who stay at home to be counted as no votes, as argued by the Opposition.
The amendments could produce a ludicrous situation. Londoners could turn out in their millions in the referendum to make their democratic choice but the chief counting officer would be unable to certify the results if fewer than 50 or 30 per cent. had voted

in a way acceptable to the hon. Member for Croydon, South. That would be ridiculous. The people of London would deserve to know how they had voted and Parliament, having provided for the referendum, would be entitled to ask what the answer was. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Ottaway: We will do no such thing. The hon. Lady gave no good arguments for withdrawing the amendments; indeed, she had no arguments at all. She said that her proposals had overwhelming support in the polls. If that is the case, let her put it to the test: let her put her money where her mouth is and prove to the people of London that her proposals have overwhelming support.
From the Minister's speech, one would think that she was nostalgically proposing the return of the GLC, but that is not being restored. We make no apology for having abolished it and have no wish to see it restored—any more than she has. If the Bill is so popular, let us put the proposals to the test and give the people of London a chance to show what they want. If the majority of them decline to do so, the result should be declared invalid. We intend to divide the House.

The Committee divided: Ayes 113, Noes 315.

Division No. 95]
[7.53 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Grieve, Dominic


Arbuthnot, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hammond, Philip


Baldry, Tony
Hawkins, Nick


Bercow, John
Hayes, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Blunt, Crispin
Horam, John


Body, Sir Richard
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Boswell, Tim
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hunter, Andrew


Brady, Graham
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brazier, Julian
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jenkin, Bernard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Johnson Smith,


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Burns, Simon
Key, Robert


Butterfill, John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cash, William
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Clappison, James
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lansley, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward


Cran, James
Letwin, Oliver


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Day, Stephen
Lidington, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan, Alan
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Nigel
Loughton, Tim


Fabricant, Michael
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fallon, Michael
MacKay, Andrew


Flight, Howard
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Madel, Sir David


Fraser, Christopher
Malins, Humfrey


Gale, Roger
Maples, John


Garnier, Edward
May, Mrs Theresa


Gibb, Nick
Moss, Malcolm


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Ottaway, Richard


Gray, James
Page, Richard


Green, Damian
Paice, James


Greenway, John
Paterson, Owen






Pickles, Eric
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Prior, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Randall, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Trend, Michael


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Tyrie, Andrew


Ruffley, David
Viggers, Peter


St Aubyn, Nick
Walter, Robert


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Whittingdale, John


Shepherd, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Willetts, David


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Sir Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Steen, Anthony



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Syms, Robert
Mr. Nigel Waterson.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clwyd, Ann


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Coaker, Vernon


Ainger, Nick
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coleman, Iain


Alexander, Douglas
Colman, Tony


Allan, Richard
Connarty, Michael


Allen, Graham
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cooper, Yvette


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Corston, Ms Jean


Ashton, Joe
Cotter, Brian


Atkins, Charlotte
Cousins, Jim


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Cox, Tom


Banks, Tony
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Barnes, Harry
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bayley, Hugh
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beard, Nigel
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dalyell, Tam


Begg, Miss Anne
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Darvill, Keith


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davidson, Ian


Benton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Betts, Clive
Dawson, Hilton


Boateng, Paul
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Denham, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Brand, Dr Peter
Dismore, Andrew


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dobbin, Jim


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Donohoe, Brian H


Buck, Ms Karen
Doran, Frank


Burden, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Drew, David


Burstow, Paul
Drown, Ms Julia


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Byers, Stephen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Casale, Roger
Flint, Caroline


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chaytor, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Chidgey, David
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Galloway, George


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gardiner, Barry



Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clelland, David
Gorrie, Donald





Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McLeish, Henry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNulty, Tony


Grocott, Bruce
MacShane, Denis


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McWalter, Tony


Hanson, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Harris, Dr Evan
Mallaber, Judy


Harvey, Nick
Marek, Dr John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Healey, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Martlew, Eric


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Maxton, John


Hepburn, Stephen
Meale, Alan


Heppell, John
Merron, Gillian


Hesford, Stephen
Michael, Alun


Hill, Keith
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hinchliffe, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Milbum, Alan


Hoey, Kate
Miller, Andrew


Home Robertson, John
Moore, Michael


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hope, Phil
Morley, Elliot


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mountford, Kali


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mudie, George


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mullin, Chris


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Norris, Dan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Öpik, Lembit


Humble, Mrs Joan
Osbome, Ms Sandra


Hurst, Alan
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hutton, John
Pearson, Ian


Illsley, Eric
Pendry, Tom


Ingram, Adam
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pike, Peter L


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Plaskitt, James


Jenkins, Brian
Pollard, Kerry


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pond, Chris


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Purchase, Ken


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quin, Ms Joyce


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Quinn, Lawrie


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rapson, Syd


Kemp, Fraser
Raynsford, Nick


Kidney, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rendel, David


Kirkwood, Archy
Rogers, Allan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooker, Jeff


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rooney, Terry


Laxton, Bob
Rowlands, Ted


Lepper, David
Roy, Frank


Leslie, Christopher
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Levitt, Tom
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Ryan, Ms Joan


Linton, Martin
Salter, Martin


Livingstone, Ken
Sanders, Adrian


Lock, David
Savidge, Malcolm


McAllion, John
Sawford, Phil


McAvoy, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


McCabe, Steve
Shaw, Jonathan


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McDonagh, Siobhain
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Macdonald, Calum
Singh, Marsha


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


Mclsaac, Shona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)







Tumer, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tumer, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Snape, Peter
Tyler, Paul


Soley, Clive
Wallace, James


Southworth, Ms Helen
Walley, Ms Joan


Squire, Ms Rachel
Ward, Ms Claire


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wareing, Robert N


Steinberg, Gerry
Watts, David


Stevenson, George
Webb, Steve


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
White, Brian


Stinchcombe, Paul
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stoate, Dr Howard
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stringer, Graham
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Willis, Phil


Stunell, Andrew
Wills, Michael


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Winnick, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wise, Audrey



Wood, Mike


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wray, James


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Timms, Stephen
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Tipping, Paddy
Wyatt, Derek


Todd, Mark



Touhig, Don
Tellers for the Noes:


Trickett, Jon
Jane Kennedy and


Truswell, Paul
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

REFERENDUM SUPPLEMENTARY

Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in clause 4, page 2, line 26, after 'shall', insert
'subject to subsection (1A) below,'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 32, in page 2, line 26, at end insert—
'(1A) The polls at the referendum shall be open from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m.'

Mr. Ottaway: This simple amendment proposes that the hours for the referendum should be extended to between 7 am and 10 pm. Those are the same hours that we use for general elections and, in our judgment, this issue is of similar importance. The proposed arrangements are that the polls open from 8 am to 9 pm. Plenty of people work before 8 am or come back after 9 pm and they will have difficulty getting to polls during this period.
London is the international commercial centre of the world, with people working long hours substantial distances from their homes. Some of them travel for perhaps an hour each way from one side of London to the other to earn their crust. It could cause difficulties if this important issue is dealt with during the polling hours of 8 am to 9 pm.
I anticipate that the Minister will say that it is impractical to have the referendum from 7 am to 10 pm while the boroughs are voting from 8 am to 9 pm. The logical response to that is, "If that is the case, change the date of the referendum." She may say in response to that suggestion, "But that will add to the expense." Of course, the last refuge in these circumstances is to raise the question of cost.
The Minister will note that the clear financial memorandum suggests that the cost of having the referendum on 7 May 1998 is £3 million, and the cost of having the referendum on another date is £5 million. Therefore, the cost of moving the referendum to another day will be £2 million. Some might say that that is a lot for an issue such as this. Others might say that, in the history of London, £2 million is not such a big sum. In truth, it is what the GLC spent every eight hours in its heyday in the 1980s.
I hope that the Minister will accept that it is not an extraordinary sum of money and that it is possible to devise a system whereby polling hours reflect the working conditions of many people. I hope that she will be able to accept the amendment.

Mr. Edward Davey: I support the amendment. We opposed the amendments on thresholds, which we felt gave the election artificial legitimacy. I am sure that the Government are keen to give the election legitimacy through the turnout. The Liberal Democrats believe that the amendment would increase the turnout, which is to be welcomed.
One of the objections to the amendment is that polling hours for local government elections are from 8 am to 9 pm. There are solutions to that practical problem. One way would be to issue referendum ballot papers during the hours when local government elections are not held. My office has contacted the returning officer in my borough, who believes that there would be no problem dealing with that practical difficulty.
An alternative solution would be to extend the hours of the local government elections. I believe that polling stations should be open longer for local government elections. They are important elections some people consider them to be more important than elections to the House. There is a strong case for extending the hours for local government elections.
The case for extending the polling hours for the referendum is even stronger, because of its constitutional significance and the importance of encouraging as high a turnout as possible. I am sure that, when right hon. and hon. Members have campaigned in local and other elections, they have had to encourage voters to participate in the democratic process. Late at night, just before the polls close, some people find reasons not to turn out to vote. By extending the hours, we will negate their arguments. We all have anecdotes to tell of people who feel unable to vote during the hours when local government elections are held.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) mentioned the problem of working hours. We live in a society in which people have long, extended working hours. It is difficult for some people to get to the polls between 8 am and 9 pm. The amendment would enable those people to participate, which would secure a much greater mandate for the Government's proposals.
There is another strong argument in favour of the amendment. The Government allowed extended hours in the referendums in Scotland and Wales. Londoners should be given the same rights. It is interesting to note that the report of the Hansard Society entitled "Election Campaigns", issued in September 1991, asks why we do not have the same polling hours for all types of elections. It is an interesting question, and I hope that, if the Minister


is not prepared to accept the amendment, she will justify the reason for having different polling hours for different elections.
Other bodies have reported on the same issue. The report of the Commission for Local Democracy, entitled "Taking Charge The rebirth for Local Democracy", says that there is no good reason for the difference, and proposes that extended hours should apply to local government as well as to parliamentary elections. I believe that extended hours should also apply to referendums, and we have an excellent chance to make that change now.
The Committee may also want to take note of the fact that, when a local government election is taking place at the same time as a parliamentary or a European election, the polling hours are extended for both elections. If that can be done for parliamentary and European elections, why can it not be done for a referendum? It seems extraordinary that referendums are the only exception.
The Minister may find my final reason for extending the polling hours even more powerful. This is the second day in Committee, and no amendments have been accepted so far. Some concessions have been made, and the Government have given some undertakings, but they have not accepted any amendments. There may well be a hidden agenda. The Government may not want a Report stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a strong point to Madam Speaker earlier today. I was not present, but I believe that she was quite concerned, because the Government had already set the timetable for this week's business and had assumed that there would not be a Report stage. They second-guessed the House. The Government Whips may want to question that, but Madam Speaker was very concerned that there would not be a Report stage this week. If only to curry favour with Madam Speaker, Ministers should accept the amendments in the spirit of cross-party co-operation.

Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). He is absolutely right. The Minister for London and Construction is no longer in his place no doubt he has gone to a darkened room to calm down after the excesses of not accepting any reasoned amendments.
There is a good case for accepting the amendment. A more regular system of referendums is being put into operation: this is unlikely to be the last referendum. We need to be flexible about when voting should take place. After all, the current polling hours have not been set in stone. They were changed in the 1970s principally to recognise different work patterns. We no longer live in a world where people work from 9 to 5: they now work different shifts. People start early, especially in London. London has adopted a method of working that is a little ahead of the rest of the country. People who work in the City and in the money exchanges arrive early in the morning, as do cleaners. By not extending the polling times, we are denying those people the franchise.
I am pleased to see the Minister for London and Construction back in his place. It is important for the Government to show that they are prepared to listen to

reasoned debate. If they refuse to accept any amendment, and to listen to any argument, the whole purpose of this debate is negated.

Mr. Eric Forth: Was my hon. Friend as struck as I was by the Minister's revelation—I think that that is not too strong a word— that it was deemed necessary to extend the polling hours for the referendums in Scotland and Wales? Has my hon. Friend reflected on why London is apparently expected to vote in a referendum on one basis, whereas the Scots and the Welsh were able to vote on an entirely different basis? Does that not throw new light on the matter? I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's thoughts on that matter.

Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend should also bear in mind the fact that the population of London is larger than the populations of Scotland and Wales combined. That emphasises the fact that there is another agenda. When we began the debate, we thought that having the referendum on the same day would artificially increase the number of people voting in the local government elections. It quickly became apparent that we had misjudged the Government, because it had nothing to do with that. They were frightened that there would not be much of a turnout for a separate referendum. The amendment would provide them with a way to increase the number of people who vote in the referendum. There is nothing to fear from democracy.

The Chairman: I call Ms Glenda Jackson.

Ms Glenda Jackson: rose—

Mr. Brooke: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I keep missing him, but it is not deliberate.

Mr. Brooke: I am fielding at backward short leg, Sir Alan. I apologise.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has done us all a service, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) testified, by drawing our attention to the fact that the Government's proposals for the referendum in London are less attractive, less generous and less satisfactory than the arrangements in Scotland and Wales.
I am half Welsh—indeed, I am more Welsh than anything else. I do not remember the precise terms of the Government's sloganeering in the Welsh referendum, but I recall it being something like, "Don't let Wales be left behind." Given the powers that are to be given to the Assembly in Wales, I am not in the least surprised that the people of Wales in the end demonstrated what they thought of the Government's proposals by the narrowness of the majority, which was contrary to all the Government's expectations.
Although I have testified to my Welshness, I am more a Londoner, by definition, than I am anything else. I profoundly resent London being treated less generously than Scotland and Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar referred to working patterns in London, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway).


If one takes the employed population and divides it by 659, the average number of people working in each constituency of this land is 37,500. Each day, my constituency has the privilege of receiving 750,000 working people, which is 20 times the national average. By the nature of things, a significant number of those people are less likely to be able to vote as a result of the voting hours that have been declared. My constituency constitutes between 20 and 25 per cent. of the entire employment of Greater London. The people who make that journey to work in the heart of the capital might be regarded as the essence of Londonness. I am disappointed that, unless the hon. Lady is about to accept the amendment, we are to be treated as a second-class city.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I must say just a sentence or two in support of the amendment [HON. MEMBERS: "Only a sentence."] The arguments are so strong that I felt they needed only a sentence or two in support.
The Minister may say that, because it is likely that the local elections will be held on the same day—Liberal Democrat Members have supported the idea that they should be on the same day—to facilitate an early referendum, it would be complicated to have the extended hours. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made clear—he was clearly supported around the Chamber—if the option is a lesser or a greater number of hours and if we are doing something on the same day that London has not done before but Scotland and Wales have done, there must be a logic in opting for both elections to have the longer hours. There is no disadvantage to the electors or to the constitutional and democratic nature of the result.
I hope that the Government will accept the argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton said, that would allow them to show that they are willing not merely to listen to arguments but to accept them. That is very different from listening to but rejecting every argument, as they have done so far.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I wonder that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) bothers to ask a question, as he seems to know what my reply is to be. I hope that an element of my response will cause him some surprise.
Certainly for the first time in my experience, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) presented himself as a character of somewhat schizophrenic nature. He began his contribution by saying that he was more Welsh—he did not define precisely whom he was more Welsh than—and went on to say that he was more a Londoner than many Londoners. As I thought that we had established a neighbourly connection by virtue of our constituencies being contiguous and our histories being inextricably linked with Birkenhead, I was disappointed that he failed to touch on our connections with the north-west of England.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said that there was a strong case for accepting the amendments. If there is, he certainly did not present it. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said that the hours for the London referendum were unfair, given the hours allowed for the similar referendums in Scotland and Wales—I am paraphrasing and I am sure that he will forgive me. That

point made before—I believe on Second Reading—to rebut that argument was that there were huge physical distances in the countries of Scotland and Wales. Both have a much more dispersed electorate than London. Although London is large and comprises millions of people, it is much more homogenous in an electoral sense—it is much easier for people to get to the polling booths and for votes to be returned for counting.

Mr. Edward Davey: The geographical aspect is irrelevant to this point; it is the working hours that matter. The working patterns of Londoners are diverse. Many Londoners commute not merely into the City and the constituency of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), but out of London. They commute miles and miles—the length and breadth of the country. My brother, for example, is often in Leeds on business during the day. To be frank with the Minister, there is a large variety in commuting patterns, which presents an even stronger case for polling hours being even more extended in London.

Ms Jackson: That point about the working hours and working patterns of Londoners was also made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). That is undoubtedly the case, but if work precludes an individual from attending the polling booth, a postal vote will be available for this referendum, as it is for local and for general elections.

Mr. Pickles: Is the hon. Lady saying that, because London is compact and so many people live here, the hours allocated for a general election are inappropriate?

Ms Jackson: No, I have no recollection of having said that. My point was that the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton and for Croydon, South based their arguments for a change in the polling hours for the referendum on the work patterns of Londoners. I understood their argument to be that, because people start work earlier and finish later and may have long distances to travel to their places of employment, their lives would be facilitated if polling stations were open from 7 am until 10 pm. The point that I was making to rebut that argument was that postal votes would be available to people for the referendum as they are for local and general elections.
I am grateful for the opportunity that the amendments offer to clarify for the Committee the arrangements that we intend to put in place on referendum polling day.

Mr. Ottaway: As justification for rejecting the amendment, the hon. Lady said that the postal vote provisions would compensate. Is she saying that hours of work and distances to be travelled across London are acceptable grounds for having a postal vote? If so, will she accept an amendment to that effect?

Ms Jackson: It is my understanding that there is already a right within law to a postal vote because of the inability to be present at a polling station because of work. The hon. Member for Croydon, South looks perplexed. I am confident that what I am saying is correct, not least because I have exercised such a right on more than one occasion.
We will set out detailed arrangements for the combined poll in secondary legislation. We intend that the referendum poll should run from 8 am until 9 pm, alongside that for borough elections. Clearly, it makes sense with a combined poll for both to open and close at the same time. We do not believe that extending the hours for the referendum poll to run from 7 am until 10 pm would be in the interests of an efficient combined poll. A combined poll in which people could cast one vote but not another at certain times would be almost impossible to administer.
I have already touched on work commitments and the availability of postal votes. We want to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to exercise his or her democratic rights in both the referendum and the local elections. Extending the referendum would cost more, delay the count and provide little advantage in terms of increased turnout.
I hope that I have been able to explain to hon. Members how we intend to proceed and have allayed any concerns. I therefore ask the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Forth: I am now more confused than I was to start with. The Minister prayed in aid the fact that, because Wales and Scotland have more dispersed populations, it is easier to get to polling stations and that, therefore, their circumstances differ from those of London. My knowledge of Scotland may be a little out of date, but things have not changed that much over the years. Actually, I spent a little time in Scotland over the summer break. I also have knowledge of Wales because I lived and worked there at one time.
The whole point about Scotland and Wales is that, traditionally, people tend to live much closer to their workplace. The great London and south-east tradition of commuting is almost unknown in Scotland and Wales, although I admit that commuting is becoming a little more frequent. If one adds that to the fact that travelling in Scotland and Wales is much easier and quicker precisely because their populations are more dispersed, one begins to see the utter fallacy of the Minister's argument.
If that is the basis of the Minister's argument, her analysis is profoundly flawed. She still has not answered the question that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) raised a short time ago. It is not good enough for Ministers to read from their notes at the Dispatch Box, making no connection with points made by Opposition Members in the debate. We are being provoked into attempting to get our arguments across in a more forceful way simply because Ministers will not listen to the debate properly or attempt to reply to the points that have been made.

Mr. Edward Davey: Did the right hon. Gentleman find the Minister's answer as unsatisfactory as I did? To increase turnout in the referendum, we could easily extend the hours for local elections to bring them into line with the period of 7 am to 10 pm, which the amendment

seeks to introduce, thus getting around all the practical difficulties that the Minister outlined. She has therefore made no case for keeping the hours at 8 am to 9 pm.

Mr. Forth: I tend to agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is an interesting point. It is relevant, for the purposes of this debate, to consider how far extending the hours would increase turnout. Sadly, we speak in the context of a voting environment in which turnout in local elections, where candidates are supposed to be closest to the people and where the issues are supposed to affect people more, tends to be lowest of all. That is a regrettable long-standing historical fact of British elections.
Let me focus on the point about Scotland and Wales, and London. It is simply not good enough for our arguments to be brushed aside by the Minister's glib and unsatisfactory—I shall not even dignify it by calling it an analysis—assertion that, because Scotland is quite big with not many people in it—

Mr. Pickles: Is not the substantive point that, even in Scotland and Wales the bulk of the population live in urban areas? Even within the confines of the old borough system, there are plenty of rural areas in London. As many people in rural areas of London will want to come to the polls as in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. Let us leave aside for the moment the great stretches of Scotland, which are thinly populated. The hon. Member for Moray will concede that, although distances may be greater, the time taken to travel them is much less because of the lack of congestion. When I spent some time in Glasgow recently, I was amused to find that the Glaswegian definition of "traffic gridlock" was quite alien to me. I found driving in Glasgow to be a joyous experience because one could make progress easily and move around readily. [Interruption.] I do not know when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) was last in Glasgow or what his recent experiences of driving in Glasgow were. He may like to enlighten us on that. He seems strangely reluctant to do so. It is the Committee's loss.
I see your Chairman's eyes narrowing at me, Sir Alan. I shall not dwell on this point for much longer. I simply wish to say that that kind of response from Ministers in reply to serious points made by Opposition Members is not good enough. I hope that, before we decide whether we wish to push the amendment to a vote, the Minister will seek to catch your eye again, Sir Alan, to attempt seriously to respond to our arguments, rather than merely ask us to accept them on the basis of assertion.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Given that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) walked into the Chamber some 20 minutes ago, his assessment of today's debate hardly warrants close analysis.

Mr. Pickles: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Jackson: No.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that people in Scotland and Wales find it easier to get to their polling stations because they live closer


to their place of work. If I recall correctly, during most of his Government's tenure, the people of Scotland and Wales had no work to which to go.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that we had failed to give due consideration to the points that Opposition Members had presented. I stand by my previous statement. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said that a strong case had been made for the amendments. If that is so, neither he nor the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, or indeed the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), has made it.

Mr. Ottaway: I must confess that, having listened to this interesting debate, I find the Minister's arguments totally unpersuasive.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is trying to persuade me.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister is trying to persuade us why we are wrong in putting forward the amendment. We put forward some perfectly valid arguments to which she failed to come up with a reasonable response. She described Scotland and Wales as some sort of outer land where people come down from the mountains, taking several hours trekking through the snow, to get to the polling stations. [Interruption.] We have Scottish Members present and we shall be pleased to hear from them.

Mr. Raynsford: Has the hon. Gentleman been to Scotland lately?

Mr. Ottaway: I most certainly have and I have spent much of my life in Scotland.
The Minister's description of those countries is false and I should be surprised if people in Scotland and Wales would have to spend as long getting to polling stations as some people in London spend getting from one side of the city to another.
I tabled the amendment primarily as a probing amendment, but the more I listened to the debate, the more I wished that I had been determined to divide the Committee. However, we are still only on clause 4— about a third of the way through—and we shall obviously be here until late tonight. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

EXCLUSION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The clause is unusual in relation to elections, although I concede that a similar one was included in the legislation for referendums in Scotland and Wales. Bizarrely, because of the guillotine that clause was not debated. The clause that we are debating states
No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast as certified by the Chief Counting Officer, or a counting officer, appointed in accordance with section 3.

It would be unusual, even if there had not been a by-election in Winchester, for someone not to raise constitutional points about the clause's impropriety and unsuitability. My hon. Friends and I shall ask the Committee to reject the clause. If it is accepted, no matter what goes wrong in the election there can be no challenge to the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast.
Some six months ago, at the general election, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) was elected with a majority of two.

Mr. David Jamieson: "Must try harder."

Mr. Hughes: We did, and I am glad to say that history tells the tale. Nobody would have denied the right of the former Member for Winchester to challenge the result on the ground of the number of votes that were certified as being duly cast for each of the candidates. I am not sure that those who lose by two votes in future will do the same.

Mr. Ottaway: They will.

Mr. Hughes: If a Conservative loses by two votes and decides to take us on again on the basis of 55 unfranked ballot papers, I warn the hon. Gentleman he might be as embarrassed on the morning after the night before as I hope Conservative Members were this time.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point, as I will explain later when I make my speech.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman wants to make a separate point.
No one denies that something went wrong at Winchester. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester accepted that and so did Gerry Malone. It was agreed by both parties that the matter should go to court. As a result of the challenge, there was an extraordinary reversal of fortune when the re-elected Member had a majority of 21,556. That is 68 per cent. of the vote and a majority of 39.6 per cent.

Mr. Forth: I think we know that.

Mr. Hughes: I think that the right hon. Gentleman does know it, but he may not know that we have such an efficient Library that it has already produced a statistical analysis of by-elections in this Parliament. I was not expecting to be presented with the updated figures which show that the share of the vote that my hon. Friend won in Winchester was higher than the share of the vote for any party, except for some Labour Members. At the top is the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) who got 74.4 per cent. of the vote. The Member with the highest percentage of the vote in Northern Ireland was the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe) who got 41.3 per cent.
As a result of the Winchester challenge, my hon. Friend has converted the smallest Liberal Democrat majority to the largest Liberal Democrat majority and the largest share of the vote, leaving my hon. Friends the Members


for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) far behind. He has a majority larger than that of any Tory Member.

Mr. Forth: That is not difficult.

Mr. Hughes: It is always the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who tops that poll. He has a majority of 18,340 and 31.8 per cent. of the vote, but he has been overwhelmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester who sped past him. The important issue is that there was a court challenge relating to the number of votes that had been counted. Whether it is an election or a referendum, Parliament should not state that nobody can challenge the result.
8.45 pm
I say that not just because my hon. Friend could have his re-run and the former Member for Winchester could challenge the victory, but in the interests of all our parties. In the cause of any future result we should delete the clause. I hope that the Committee agrees. If there is a proper ground for an appeal the courts should be able to decide and should not be precluded from doing that by an arrogant clause.

Mr. Ottaway: The reason for the clause is a mystery. In our view, the Government and their officials must be held to account for errors. Mistakes are not uncommon. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the Winchester by-election and I should like to correct him on one point. The first election was won by Gerry Malone who was denied his victory by incorrectly franked ballot papers.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ottaway: No, I will not give way because this is not my main point. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to have his day in the sun and he gloated and stuck the result up our noses. We did not like the consequences of the re-run, but anyone who sees his opponent win by two votes when 50 ballot papers show that he should not have won would take the decision that was taken by Gerry Malone. It is not a familiar process. There can be errors in sorting and in franking and there should be a right of appeal if circumstances permit.
The clause sets a dubious trend. Effectively, it is contracting out of the principle of judicial review. Parliament would have the last word and courts could be excluded if the clause were included in the legislation. Ministers may be tempted to exclude judicial review in other legislation or to include such a clause in the substantive Bill on the Greater London authority.
The Minister for London and Construction has recently been to New York. Apart from parliamentary answers, I know that from meetings that I went to there. At every one of them I was told, "Oh, was here three weeks ago." He will know that New York's new constitution was put in place just four years ago. It is still being explored and people are testing the ground. There

is much doubt over the mayor's powers. The council can veto the mayor's legislative proposals, but the question whether it can veto his power of appointment is rather vague. The Minister will probably be aware that, in the New York courts, there are more than 20 cases of judicial review of the mayor's decisions. If they had such a clause in their substantive Bill, all those powers would be excluded. That shows that it is essential that the checks and balances of the courts versus Parliament are maintained. We share the Liberal Democrats' view that the clause should not be included in the Bill.

Mr. Raynsford: I hope to be able to persuade the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that he has misinterpreted the clause. When I have explained exactly what its impact is, I hope that he will recognise that it is not sinister, as he implies.
Clause 6 is a valuable protection to ensure that the Government can respond swiftly to the referendum results. As I shall explain, it does not prohibit legal challenge where there has been some form of misconduct over the referendum count. The clause's purpose is the same as that behind the equivalent clauses in the Referendum Act 1975, the Scotland Act 1978, the Wales Act 1978 and the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997. There is a strong precedent for the clause in previous legislation.
The clause is designed to prevent any frivolous challenges to the counting of votes or ballot papers, but we recognise that the Bill does not amount to an absolute bar on legal proceedings as the courts may construe clause 6 as not ousting their jurisdiction in appropriate cases.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: Will the Minister describe a frivolous challenge?

Mr. Raynsford: It must be obvious to the hon. Gentleman, who has recently come into the Chamber, that raising a question about the validity of half a dozen votes in a referendum, where the outcome had been decided by a majority of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands and where six votes would have no effect on the conclusion of the referendum, would be a frivolous challenge. It is right and proper that public money should not be wasted in pursuit of frivolous challenges.
This is an important point. The courts may construe clause 6 as not ousting their jurisdiction in appropriate cases, such as one involving a flagrant breach of the law by a counting officer in the conduct of the referendum. I assure all hon. Members that there is no question of the courts not being able to consider appropriate cases.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey implied that there had been no debate on this issue in the other place when the Scotland and Wales referendum legislation was being considered there. The clause was fully debated in another place on stand part. The Lord Advocate spoke for the Government. Lord Lester of Herne Hill spoke for the hon. Gentleman's party. There was no vote at the end of that and the clause was accepted.
We recognise that the courts are rightly jealous of their jurisdiction and carefully examine clauses that seek to oust their powers. I am advised by Law Officers that there is a substantial body of case law concerning the proper interpretation of such statutory provisions. Should any


legal proceedings be brought challenging the actions of the chief counting officer or a counting officer, it will be for the court, in accordance with case law and the particular circumstances of the case, to decide whether a challenge could be entertained in the light of clause 6.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am encouraged by what the Minister says. Just for the avoidance of doubt, I did not suggest that there was no debate on the other Bill; only that there was no debate here. I put to the Minister the pertinent question. I share the concern and endorse the view of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). Let us take a case parallel to the by-election case. Let us say that a referendum had been decided by a majority of two and there were 55 unmarked papers—it is the best case that we can give because it really happened. Is the Minister saying that his legal advice is that there will be nothing to preclude a challenge by someone who wants to argue that the referendum result was wrong and that, had the papers been included, it would have gone the other way?

Mr. Raynsford: The important point, which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise, is that it will be for the courts to reach a view on whether they should entertain such an application. They would reach judgment as to whether in practice clause 6 should apply, or whether it should not because it would be wrong for it to oust their jurisdiction. That is the crucial consideration and I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he is looking for.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If that is the case and the law, I accept that. In that case, the clause is slightly odd because an ordinary lay person or anyone else who reads an Act that says
No court shall entertain any proceedings
and is then told that the courts can entertain them if they want to, will think that this is not the clearest legislation in the world. They might regard it even as misleading.

Mr. Raynsford: It will not be for the first time in this place that we encounter such difficulty with the phrasing of legislation. When first considering the clause, I expressed some concerns on that ground, but I am satisfied that this is a proper provision, which is designed to prevent frivolous challenges, while not preventing a genuine challenge.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has raised an important point. He gave the figures for Winchester, and the Minister rightly said that this will be a matter for the court to decide, but the court will pick up the Bill, which by then will be an Act, read
No court shall entertain any proceedings
and decide that it cannot hear the case, effectively saying that legal proceedings will not happen.

Mr. Raynsford: As I said earlier, there is a substantial body of case law concerning the interpretation of such provisions and I am advised, by people in a far better position than I to understand it, that the clause will not prevent a court from entertaining a case, where it believes that it is right and proper to do so.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) mentioned New York. I do not think that the New York example is helpful in this respect. During my visit to New York, I was somewhat startled, during a discussion with the city attorney, to be told that his office contains several hundred employees who deal with outstanding lawsuits relating to the city of New York. I believe that the figure quoted was 160,000. That shows the litigiousness of the American people, which I hope will not be a precedent in this country.
I hope that I have satisfied the Committee that the clause is a safeguard to prevent frivolous litigation. It does not cut across fundamental rights.

Mr. Pickles: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman insists.

Mr. Pickles: The Minister has gone a considerable way. He has been honest and straightforward in saying that he had concerns when he first considered the clause, but he said, "Do not worry. The powers of the courts are such that they can still consider proceedings." I should be grateful if he could give just some examples of how the words "any proceedings" can be nullified by court action. If courts cannot consider any proceedings, how can they consider proceedings at all?

Mr. Raynsford: I regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have already said that this matter has been considered in the context of several previous Acts—in 1975, in 1978 and earlier this year. Those people who are far better qualified than I to consider these matters are satisfied that the clause does not oust the courts' jurisdiction in serious matters. That is the crucial consideration. We are providing a safeguard against frivolous litigation. We are basing it on the precedents that have been brought into law with all previous recent referendums. On that basis, I support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

FUNCTIONS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 15, at beginning insert
'Subject to section (London Electoral Convention) below,'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 25, in page 3, line 17, leave out
'and any direction given under it'.
No. 10, in page 3, line 30, at beginning insert
'which the London Electoral Convention recommends and'.
No. 26, in page 3, line 31, at end insert—
'(3) The Commission's report shall be based on the assumption that the elections will be conducted on the "first past the post" system.'
No. 11, in clause 9, page 4, line 29, at end insert
'and with the agreement of the London Electoral Convention'.


New clause 1—London Electoral Convention—
—'Within a month of the coming into force of this Act, the Secretary of State shall appoint, after consultation with representatives of all the political parties represented at local government and parliamentary level in Greater London and with others, a London Electoral Convention, which shall consider and recommend an appropriate proportional electoral system for Greater London, which commands broad consensus.'.

9 pm

Mr. Hughes: This is an important group of amendments because they refer to the electoral process for the Londonwide body. We are keen that the House does not dig itself into a position that produces a sterile and infertile debate, where we all end up with exactly the same view as we held at the beginning.
We have proposed, and are inviting the Committee to accept, that there should be set up to establish the electoral arrangements for London the same sort of body that was set up for Scotland. In Scotland, the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, initially the Scottish National party, the trade unions, the Churches and other bodies sat down and worked out an electoral system that would in their view obtain the best and widest support. It was not the electoral system in the minds of any of us when we began the process, but ultimately the Scottish Constitutional Convention agreed to it as part of the package. It was worth doing as it meant that there was a common platform in support of the referendum proposals and a Scottish Parliament. As the Committee knows, the result was a majority of about 4:1 in favour of the proposal that Scotland should have its own Parliament.
Wales had no electoral convention or commission and no constitutional convention or commission, and the House remembers the history of proceedings from there on. The proposal for an Assembly for Wales scraped through by the narrowest of majorities. The Government almost lost their proposal, to the dismay of those of us in the House who have long been advocates of a Welsh Parliament, a Welsh Senate or a Welsh Assembly. More important, the people of Wales almost lost the proposal.
We do not want the Londonwide body to stumble and fall on the basis that it does not enjoy a democratic mandate. The truth is that the Greater London council, the body's previous incarnation, had precisely that weakness. The Government of the day, of whatever colour, were able to look across the river to county hall and say, "The body over there does not enjoy a majority of public support from the electorate", and it did not. We are asking the House to agree that, whatever we think about the particular electoral system, there should be a way of arriving at it that obtains maximum agreement.
I have made it clear to Ministers and others that the principle of going through a Green Paper is welcome. At the beginning, it sets out 10 key criteria, the first nine of which are that it should be strategic, democratic, inclusive, effective, small, audible, clear about its role, efficient and influential. I agree with those nine criteria. The 10th is the great new Labour proposal that the new authority should be consensual. I do not think that everyone wants their politics to be consensual; indeed, I do not think that it is possible for our politics to be consensual. I certainly hope that they are not. I am happy

for the authority to be collaborative and co-operative, but to suggest that we all have to agree, or that politics in London in future should require a consensus, is nonsense. There will be differences of view. For example, there may be a difference of view over whether London Transport should be publicly or privately owned. There will not be consensus across the political divide on that issue, and I do not think that there should be. I want to ensure—it must be in the interest of the Committee and the House to ensure—that the Londonwide authority reflects the view of the majority of London's citizens as best represented through the democratic process.
I therefore hope that the Committee will agree that we should attempt to deliver an electoral system that meets some fairly clear criteria and also takes into account all the issues in London.
As I have said in every venue in which I have been asked about the matter, Ministers—very reasonably— have made no firm and final proposal. They said that they would consult about the election and franchise methods and about constituencies. I welcome that consultation, although neither my team nor I have yet been able to work out—we have not had time, in one afternoon—what all the consultation responses have said on the issues.
There is, however, widespread support—I am not saying majority support—for a representative form of election. Some hon. Members—including some Labour and Tory Members—are advocates of the traditional first-past-the-post system. For the purposes of this debate, I ask hon. Members to put out of their minds arguments over national Government and a national Parliament and to isolate arguments over local elections to local councils. We are not talking about either of those matters; we are talking about a type of regional government that we have not had before.
I accept that there is no precedent for such a government. Neither the Greater London council nor the Inner London education authority nor the London county council provides an exact precedent. We can therefore start with a clean slate. I ask hon. Members to keep an open mind about the outcome, as I will. I am not one of those people who were born muttering, "single transferable vote". I was not brought up believing that that was a political mantra and a precondition of any of the world's political systems, because it is simply not true. We have to try to find some principles. In all seriousness and optimism, I invite the Committee to reflect on what those principles might be and to agree them.
I ask the Committee to accept, first, that one of those principles should be that the voting system should be fair and give equal weight to all votes, not allowing people in London to feel that their vote does not count as much as the vote of someone else in their part of London.
Secondly—I ask colleagues to reflect on how to implement it—there should be voter choice. In my constituency, Bengali voters, for example, should be able to choose a Bengali candidate. All political parties should allow voters—such as those in the Afro-Caribbean community—to say, "I want someone to represent me who has the same ethnic background."
Voters should be able to choose a candidate on the basis of experience and age. Someone might say, "I want to put at the top of my list a trade unionist". If they are a first-time voter or 18-year-old, they might say, "I want to put a young person at the top of my list." After the general


election, the House welcomed some new young hon. Members. I unreservedly welcome them. Two Labour Members are about 25, and that is extremely welcome. I hope that hon. Members realise the benefit of a broad age range in the House.
The Labour party—although it has had to do some slightly funny things to make it happen—has done a better job than the Liberal Democrats or the Conservative party in increasing considerably the number of women Members. I hugely welcome that development, and the House is already better for it. I am convinced that we will be much better off if we have more women in Parliament. Women should know that they will have the opportunity to vote for women, or men for women, if that is what they want. They should have a choice.
As I stand here, I am very conscious of the fact that the political process delivers to Parliament for the elector one type of Labour candidate, one type of Conservative candidate or one type of Liberal Democrat. Electors in my constituency, who might be my supporters but who are African or Bangladeshi, do not have the opportunity to vote for a Liberal Democrat who is African or Bangladeshi, if it so happens that the person who wins in the first-past-the-post selection system in the party is a white Anglo-Saxon. That is an important issue.
The third matter on which I ask the Committee to reflect is a difficult one, and I do not pretend otherwise. We should try to use real electoral boundaries that are natural and sensible. 1 shall not detain the Committee too long, but I want to outline the salient points. The Government propose that the authority should have something like 20 to 30 members. At first sight, that might suggest one member per borough. The weakness of that is that anyone elected would be, in effect, his or her borough's spokesperson. That would be a bad thing because the authority is not that kind of body, which is why we, like the Government, voted against the Conservative proposal that the assembly should comprise a group of London borough leaders. I represent the old boroughs of Southwark and Bermondsey so I come here by definition partly to be the Member of Parliament for those boroughs and to fight their corner—my electorate would expect nothing less. The same is true of all electorates. Thus, to end up with 32 or 33 seats, each representing a local authority area, would be wrong.
Another possible set of boundaries are the European Parliament constituency boundaries. I share what I think is the Government's view, which is that we do not want long and complicated hearings or the redrawing of London maps to break up existing communities but that some of the European boundaries hardly form natural communities. I urge colleagues to consider that we would do well not to take off the shelf, as it were, boundaries that were created for another purpose and which would not serve these proposals well. The obvious example of that is that some of those boundaries extend beyond Greater London. They were not meant to form the basis for a set of Londonwide representatives, so they would be inappropriate in this case.
A third possibility would be to take London as a whole and deal with it as one constituency. However, that has some huge weaknesses because it would involve a list system. I accept that if one has been a Liberal for 25 years and has not understood these things, one must have been somewhere else, but there are two ways to proceed. One is to have a party list system, in which case Walworth

road or Millbank tower, Cowley street or Smith square decides who gets on the list—or the members decide— and the voters have no choice. The second way is to have a list influenced by the voters—they choose who goes on the list and in what order. Obviously, my party would prefer the latter option if there were to be a list system.
Some element of a list system might be a good idea, but that would have one overriding disadvantage if we were left with a Londonwide constituency. It would mean that people in, say, Hillingdon, Barnet, Havering or Croydon might feel that they were dominated by the central London weighted vote. The old Inner London education authority was always Labour controlled—I am not complaining about that—but it meant that a Tory voter in a Tory constituency in a potentially Tory borough felt, or could have felt, that it was never his authority. I do not want people in Kingston, Croydon, Barnet or Enfield to feel that the new authority is not for them. Whatever the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) feels about the need for the new authority, if that authority is to exist, it is important that he and his voters feel that it is for them. The same goes for the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and his voters. We must be sensitive to the different communities.
London is a collection of many things. It is a collection of villages, which are real places. It is a collection of local authorities which are not very real but are recent amalgamations. Some of their predecessors were much more real—Clerkenwell, Holborn, Bermondsey, Southwark and Camberwell—but the new boroughs are artificial. However, the county areas are not artificial. Middlesex is not artificial. The Kent part of London still has a Kent postal code. The people of Bromley and Bexley feel themselves to be in Kent. The people of Croydon and Sutton feel that they are in Surrey. Yes, they are in Greater London, but it is the Surrey part of Greater London. The people in the eastern boroughs are proud to live in Essex—and so they should be.
9.15 pm
I hope that we shall consider a system that would allow those communities to speak. They may not have exactly the same size of electorate, but, with a fair electoral system, that does not matter. I do not want to go into detail, but, for example, the Kent part of Greater London could elect three members, the Surrey part could elect six members and the Middlesex part could elect 10 members, if those are the right proportions. The areas do not have to have the same number of constituencies.
I want to ensure that all the ethnic communities also feel that they can own the result of the election. For them to feel part of it, they must be in a constituency big enough to allow them to be represented. If only one person is elected from my constituency—it might be a white man or woman, or a black man or woman—there is only one person to represent everybody in Southwark, North and Bermondsey. If the constituency covered all of the old Surrey part of London, there would be seven, eight or nine members elected. It is likely that those elected representatives would include someone with a Cypriot background, a black person and an Asian representative. There would also probably be a roughly even balance between women and men. That is very important. I do not want anyone to feel that the assembly does not speak for


them. I am far more concerned about that than about the political balance, because it is important that everybody owns the place.
Of course it would be nonsense if there were a majority of members—that majority would have come from Labour if the election had been this year—who did not command a majority of support among Londoners. That would not reflect what Londoners wanted. I want secure legislation.
I do not have a prescription or all the answers. My party is not dogmatic about the issue or arrogant about the outcome. In Scotland, the Liberal Democrats negotiated with Labour and others, arriving at an outcome that was different from the place where we all started. We have ended up with a mixed system—some alternative vote and some single transferable vote. That may be what we decide on. I ask the Committee, rather than rushing into what might be the wrong decision, to agree a procedure to take the discussion out of this place so that we can try to reach the maximum agreement on the system. If we can agree on the best system for all of us, we can go out to fight our own corners and the Londonwide body will have the variety, pluralism and benefit of all our voices. I hope that the Committee and the Government will welcome positively a proposal that would give us the best way of arriving at the best electoral system.

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) may not have been born muttering "STV", but he was certainly born muttering "proportional representation". Although he slightly wrapped up his message, it is clear from new clause 1 that what he proposes is proportional representation. It will not come as an enormous surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I take a radically different position, which is set out in amendments Nos. 25 and 26 and can be summarised as support for the first-past-the-post system.
I will illustrate my case by referring to what happened in the 1997 general election. It might be thought that the Conservatives would favour a more proportional system because, with the first-past-the-post system, the result was that Labour won 419 seats whereas the Conservatives won 165. On that basis, some Ministers believe that they do not need to bother with the arguments and that hon. Members can take it or leave it.
It is a useful correction to remember that on the basis of pure proportionality, the result of the 1997 election would have been that Labour had 285 seats and the Conservatives 202 seats. Achieving that result under a PR system is anything but easy, however, as has been demonstrated conclusively by the Democratic Audit of the United Kingdom, an organisation run in association with the London school of economics and Birkbeck college. It employed ICM which interviewed 8,500 voters straight after the election and asked them to vote again using the main PR systems that were being advocated.
Under the alternative vote system, Labour would have won 436 seats and the Conservatives would have been down to 110. Rather than making the system fairer or more proportional, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey claims, that type of PR would

make it substantially worse. The same is true of the supplementary vote system, a close cousin of the alternative vote system which is, I gather, used for presidential elections in Sri Lanka.
The same survey showed that with the single transferable vote system, Labour support would be overstated. Our own support would be understated and Liberal Democrat support would be significantly overstated. Doubtless that is why the single transferable vote system is the Liberal Democrats' favoured system.
On the basis of the 1997 election, the only system of PR that would come close to proportionality is the additional member system. If the election had been based on having half elected locally and half elected regionally, there would have been about 300 Labour Members, 200 Conservative Members and just over 100 Liberal Democrat Members.
A different price is paid for that system. Half the representatives—it does not need to be half because the proportion can be different—are elected without constituencies to represent. The direct link goes; it would go almost entirely if we went to an entire list system under which, in effect, the party chooses and controls the candidate. The candidate is answerable to the party and not to the public; I find that entirely objectionable.
For a range of reasons, I strongly support the retention of the first-past-the-post system for London elections. First, I am aware of no overwhelming reason or public demand for a change to proportional representation. The survey to which I referred showed that 41 per cent. were in favour of first past the post, 44 per cent. supported the additional member system and 14 per cent. were undecided, so it was very much even Stevens.
The Government have already promised a referendum on PR in parliamentary elections during this Parliament. That is already pledged. There will then be a full debate and the issues will be explored. I see no case for changing the system in London before that referendum.
Secondly, I am strongly opposed to breaking the link between the elected representative and the public. I do not accept the implicit argument in the Green Paper that London's assemblymen are in effect strategic thinkers. The Green Paper says
The method of election to the assembly needs to reflect and support the role of assembly members. Assembly members will be required to think and act strategically, looking at London-wide issues and the long-term interests of the capital. We do not think they need to or should duplicate the local representational roles of borough Councillors, MPs and Euro-MPs.
I do not see how a representative can think strategically or in any other political way without being linked to the local community. We do not want assemblymen who are insulated from public opinion. Therefore, we want assemblymen representing the existing boroughs and—if the Government introduce such a system—elected on a first-past-the-post system.
I do not believe that any of the PR systems proposed has a clear advantage over the first-past-the-post system. As the democratic audit shows, a number of the PR systems produce a worse result in terms of proportionality. Others, such as the list system or the partial list system, simply destroy the link with the public and put the party and not the public in the driving seat.
The first-past-the-post system provides certainty. It is easy to understand. It has provided elected Governments that are able to govern—and that can be applied to local


government. It has not generally led to coalition deals which the public may not want and which may result in entirely unforeseen policies.
I am encouraged by one of the Minister's statements this afternoon. When one of my hon. Friends suggested that PR was inevitable, the Minister appeared to dissent from that proposition and said that no decision had been made. I welcome that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think extremely carefully before introducing election by PR for London. The Conservative party is opposed to PR. We will campaign against it and we believe that the case has not remotely been made for it. We favour the first-past-the-post system.

Sir Paul Beresford: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), and would like to add to some of the points that he has made. I recognise that I am no longer a London Member. I speak merely from my experience as a Conservative councillor in London for a considerable time. I have resisted the temptation to accept the invitation from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to speak as an ethnic minority. In the light of some of the recent rugby matches, it is best if I do not do that.
My memory of London government under the GLC and the ILEA is bitter. It did not matter who was in control, there was conflict at every stage. I am concerned that the Labour Government have produced a proposal tacked on to the wish for a voice for London, and then proceeded to destroy its strength. The proposal for proportional representation is the last nail in that coffin.
We will have a series of levels of potential conflict between the boroughs, the GLA, the mayor, the regional development authority, the Government office for London and the Government. In the middle, we shall have the assembly, which could be elected by proportional representation. The experience in this country and many others, as reflected in the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, is that we tend to end up with deals—a hung assembly.
We need to ponder extremely carefully and consider seriously supporting the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend. At every move, the Government have undermined the strength of the mayor and the voice for London. They will undermine it even more if we have a hung assembly, which is the natural consequence of a form of proportional representation.
I am deeply concerned that the people of London will vote in a referendum for what they see as a strong voice. What they will get is permanently hung government in London. The proportional representation proposal will ensure that, as is reflected in many nations throughout the world, including the one from which I emigrated, we have strong government destroyed by proportional representation. I fully support my right hon. Friend's amendments.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Although the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) argue strongly against each other, it was a pleasure to listen to both arguments being so succinctly presented in a dedicated way.
I turn first to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. We are grateful for the tabling of the amendments. As they make clear, and as the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey underlined in a particularly succinct manner, it is his desire to arrive at a consensus—that is essential—behind his call for an electoral convention. He listed in essence three points to which he wished the Committee to give due consideration. The first was a fair-voting system. The second was that, whatever system is devised, it should be inclusive. The third was on the issue of boundaries.
What became apparent in the presentation of the argument of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was the infinite variety in London—not only a geographic or ethnic variety but one including gender dimensions. It is clearly of the utmost importance that the electoral systems that will be used to elect the mayor and members of the assembly are the most appropriate ones. Both the mayor and the assembly will need to command the support and confidence of the people of London in their infinite variety. More than that, the electoral system selected for the assembly will help to determine the kind of body that emerges.
We want an assembly that can act strategically, consider Londonwide issues, properly represent the wide range of communities across the city, and take decisions that are in the long-term interests of this great capital. The electoral system needs to reflect that, and to ensure that it produces people who are capable of performing the role that will be expected of assembly members.
It is because we recognised the crucial importance of electoral issues in making London's strategic authority effective that a whole chapter of the Green Paper was devoted to the complex issues involved. We asked seven specific questions on electoral issues.
Much reference has been made to the responses that have been received to that Green Paper and they are still being sifted and analysed. I can tell the Committee that they reveal both the significance that respondents attach to these matters and the very wide range of views and opinions that exist in this great metropolis. The Government intend to study all the responses that have been received. There is little point in consultation exercises if close attention is not paid to the opinions expressed, and the Government give a clear commitment to do so.
The proposals will properly be set out in the White Paper that will be published before the referendum next spring. Following a yes vote, the main Bill will be presented in the next Session.
A London electoral convention would not add to that process, and setting it up would be extremely cumbersome and unnecessarily bureaucratic. It is no small matter seeking to consult every political grouping represented in London local authorities, and there is no guarantee that all those diverse groups, and the main parties, could agree on the composition of the convention in time for it to convene, consult, make recommendations, and publish them before a referendum on 7 May. In all probability, the convention would serve to delay the referendum—and progress towards new government for London—by many months, putting at risk substantive legislation next Session.
The Government believe that it would be better to proceed as we have outlined. We will, after taking account of the responses that we have received, take the decision on what electoral systems will be the most appropriate. No doubt whatever we decide will be unwelcome to some, but that would also be the case with an electoral convention. The Government's decisions will form part of the package of proposals that we will put to the people of London in our White Paper, and on which they will be able to vote on 7 May. Of course, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will know, in the end it will be for Parliament to establish the authority in the context of the Bill.
A London electoral convention would only complicate and delay the process and would not guarantee that better electoral systems were selected. I hope that, on consideration, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will see fit to withdraw his amendments. Given the enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for ensuring that London has the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals fully ahead of the referendum, it would seem odd to delay until after the referendum a decision on an issue that could fundamentally affect the nature and character of the GLA.
The amendments and the argument presented by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey— albeit clearly, succinctly and with the best of intentions— would serve only to delay progress towards democratic citywide government.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's considered reply, and I understand why she is not accepting the amendments. However, I have never argued for delay—as the Minister will see from Hansard—and my party is at one with the Government. One way to achieve our aims would be to allow the convention to sit past May, but require it to complete its deliberations by the time the substantive legislation was introduced next year. We do not argue that the convention would have finished its work before the referendum in May.

Ms Jackson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I cannot accept that a convention that extended beyond the referendum would be helpful to the people of London. No greater clarity would be achieved, and confusion would be inevitable. People would think that they were being asked to buy a pig in a poke, and that is not the direction that we believe the new form of government should take. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the people of London have already waited 11 years too long, and anything that would delay the process would surely not find favour with them.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield presented his arguments for amendments Nos. 25 and 26 with great clarity and conviction, but I cannot see any great advantage in fettering consideration of the consultation process, or negating the responses that have been received, by legislating as he proposed. It is surely for the people of London to make a judgment on proposed electoral systems in the referendum in May, as part of the package presented to them in the White Paper.
The right hon. Gentleman made much of what he perceived to be the essential link between elector and elected. I agree whole-heartedly with him that that is vital,

if a parliamentary constituency is the basis of the link, but we are proposing a new form of local government in which the assembly and the mayor, working together, will have a strategic view of London.
The right hon. Gentleman discounted the idea of a strategic view, but Londoners do not live exclusively in their own parliamentary constituency or local authority area they may have homes in one part of London and work or attend an educational establishment in another. They can bewail the failures that they perceive across London as a whole. It does a disservice to Londoners to present them as concerned exclusively about local issues in their city. There has been a strong response to the idea of restoring a democratic voice for the whole of London, because Londoners have a sense of being part of the city as a whole.
We are still considering responses to the Green Paper. We have made it clear that proposals for electoral systems for the authority will be fully covered in the White Paper, and that is what the people of London will be asked to vote on. We believe that that is the correct order to follow.
The Bill makes clear the areas in which directions from the Secretary of State may be necessary. Those directions will be guided by the provisions in the White Paper and by the timetable necessary to ensure that recommendations are available in time for the substantive legislation establishing the GLA.
Given the passion and conviction that informed the contributions of both the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, it is somewhat unlikely that they will respond to my request to withdraw the amendments, but I hope that they will give that request fair consideration.

Dr. Cable: I acknowledge that the Green Paper provided in a short space a helpful summary of the key arguments for different electoral systems, but it is opaque about where the Government are heading, and we want to introduce a process that will lead to greater transparency.
It is perhaps unhelpful to approach the question as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) did, by calculating which party would do best out of which system; that is not the spirit of our approach. We should consider how to improve the legitimacy of the new body. The old Greater London council had a chequered history: as the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) pointed out, it was often associated with great bitterness.
We need the new authority to be legitimate and grounded in public opinion, and to engender popular support and a sense of ownership. The first requirement for that is that it should be representative. I remind the Committee what happened in the last two GLC elections. The striking results are reminders of the dangers of simply reproducing the national first-past-the-post system.
In 1977, for example, the Labour party had a bad year and won only 32 per cent. of the votes, getting roughly the same number of seats, but the Conservatives won 70 per cent. of the seats with only 52 per cent. of the votes. Such a result could easily be reproduced in a bad mid-term poll for the Government.
The 1981 result, which I think brought the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to national prominence, saw the Labour party achieve only 41 per


cent. of the vote, but it won a majority—54 per cent.—of the seats. It was the palace revolution that followed which changed the face of London. It was fundamentally unrepresentative.
9.45 pm
The problem with unrepresentative local government— the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield missed this point—is that the lack of representative government inherent in the first-past-the-post system, combined with low turnout, produces appalling anomalies in local government. In my adult life, I have lived in two local authority areas, both of which illustrate in different ways the problem of the first-past-the-post system creating vast majorities for parties.
I served for some years on Glasgow city council, a privilege that I shared with you, Mr. Martin. Glasgow has many positive things to its credit, but 80 years of virtual one-party rule has hardly helped the city to provide representative and credible government. I now live in another one-party state, although, as it is Liberal Democrat controlled, I think that it is more competent and popular than others. However, it is clearly unrepresentative, and it is unsatisfactory that the borough has had virtually no Labour representation for much of the past two decades. It is unsatisfactory that turnouts of 40 per cent. in local elections, combined with narrow majorities, produce overwhelming results.
The argument applies not only to the assembly but to the formula for electing the mayor. It is not inconceivable that we could get three or four admirable candidates in the mayoral election, who each attract broadly the same number of votes. If the traditional pattern of local government election turnout is reproduced, the mayor could be elected with the support of barely 10 to 15 per cent. of the population. That would be profoundly unsatisfactory.
In considering the options, we must address two issues that were briefly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). First, we need geographical balance. It would be appalling if we reproduced the problem that existed throughout the history of the GLC, of an inner London dominated by Labour representatives against suburbs dominated by Conservatives, with the city polarised and resentment about the levels of rates and services. We want a system with better geographical balance.
The second objective is better ethnic balance. Only four of 74 London Members are from ethnic minorities. It is a credit to the Labour party that it has brought us this far forward. We and the Conservatives do not have any. About 16 would be more appropriate, given the ethnic distribution. I am arguing not for politically correct quotas but for a system that allows a choice of candidates.
We have our own formulation—large multi-member constituencies and candidate selection—but that is not the issue. We are not arguing for a particular approach, but for a process that allows consideration of representative government, with large constituencies that allow partnerships and cross-party alliances to develop.
To help the Government, we have chosen in the amendment the language used in the Cook-Maclennan process, through which we are trying achieve at national

level a more representative system of government. That has opened up the possibility of dialogue between our parties on this subject. We are trying to reproduce the same spirit of consensus at London level.

Ms Glenda Jackson: The issues touched on by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) are well known to us. Not only are they part and parcel of the Liberal Democrat ethos, but clearly they are valid in their own right. He presented them clearly and succinctly, and touched on many of the issues raised by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
Without in any way wishing to discount the argument of the hon. Member for Twickenham, the central point is the legitimacy of the system. Our Green Paper set out a section containing all the issues touched on tonight. We are now saying to the people of London, "We have asked you to consider our proposals. You have responded to us, and we are now in the process of considering your responses." Without genuinely giving those responses the due respect and consideration that they deserve, the legitimacy—which is essential as we move to a modern form of government—would be flawed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Hughes: I wish to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 33, Noes 298.

Division No. 96]
[9.50 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Hancock, Mike


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Harris, Dr Evan


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Brake, Tom
Kirkwood, Archy


Brand, Dr Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Moore, Michael


Burnett, John
Öpik, Lembit


Burstow, Paul
Rendel, David


Cable, Dr Vincent
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Stunell, Andrew



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Chaytor, David
Tyler, Paul


Chidgey, David
Wallace, James


Cotter, Brian
Webb, Steve


Dafis, Cynog
Willis, Phil


Davey, Edward (Kingston)



Foster, Don (Bath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Mr. Adrian Sanders and


Gorrie, Donald
Mr. David Heath.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ainger, Nick
Bennett, Andrew F


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benton, Joe


Alexander, Douglas
Bermingham, Gerald


Allan, Richard
Betts, Clive


Allen, Graham
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ashton, Joe
Buck, Ms Karen


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Burden, Richard


Barnes, Harry
Burgon, Colin


Bayley, Hugh
Butler, Mrs Christine


Beard, Nigel
Byers, Stephen


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Caborn, Richard


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)






Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hain, Peter


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cann, Jamie
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Casale, Roger
Hanson, David


Cawsey, Ian
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Healey, John


Chaytor, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heppell, John



Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Ann
Hope, Phil


Coaker, Vernon
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coffey, Ms Ann
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Colman, Tony
Howells, Dr Kim


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cooper, Yvette
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hurst, Alan


Corston, Ms Jean
Hutton, John


Cousins, Jim
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Crausby, David
Ingram, Adam


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cryer, John (Homchurch)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jenkins, Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair



Darvill, Keith
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)



Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Denham, John
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dismore, Andrew
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Doran, Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Dowd, Jim
Kidney, David


Drew, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Drown, Ms Julia
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Laxton, Bob


Edwards, Huw
Lepper, David


Efford, Clive
Leslie, Christopher


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Levitt, Tom


Ennis, Jeff
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fatchett, Derek
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Linton, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Livingstone, Ken


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lock, David


Flint, Caroline
McAllion, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Galbraith, Sam
McDonagh, Siobhain


Galloway, George
Macdonald, Calum


Gardiner, Barry
McFall, John


Gerrard, Neil
Mclsaac, Shona


Gibson, Dr Ian
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Godsiff, Roger
Mackinlay, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
McLeish, Henry


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona





McWalter, Tony
Shaw, Jonathan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mallaber, Judy
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mandelson, Peter
Singh, Marsha


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Maxton, John



Meale, Alan
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Snape, Peter


Milbum, Alan
Soley, Clive


Miller, Andrew
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morley, Elliot
Steinberg, Gerry


Mountford, Kali
Stevenson, George


Mudie, George
Stewart, Ian (Ecdes)


Mullin, Chris
Stinchcombe, Paul


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Norris, Dan
Stringer, Graham


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Öpik, Lembit
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)


Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pike, Peter L
Timms, Stephen


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pollard, Kerry
Todd, Mark


Pond, Chris
Touhig, Don


Pope, Greg
Trickett, Jon Truswell, Paul


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Primarolo, Dawn
Walley, Ms Joan


Prosser, Gwyn
Ward, Ms Claire


Purchase, Ken
Wareing, Robert N


Quin, Ms Joyce
Watts, David


Quinn, Lawrie
White, Brian


Rapson, Syd
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Willis, Phil


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Wise, Audrey


Rooney, Terry
Wood, Mike


Rowlands, Ted
Worthington, Tony


Roy, Frank
Wray, James


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wyatt, Derek


Salter, Martin



Savidge, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Sawford, Phil
Jane Kennedy and


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o 'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. McFall.]

Question agreed to.

Again considered in Committee.

Amendment proposed: No. 26, in clause 7, page 3, line 31, at end insert—

'(3) The Commission's report shall be based on the assumption that the elections will be conducted on the "first past the post" system.'.—[Sir Norman Fowler.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The committee divided: Ayes 120, Noes 327.

Division No. 97]
[10.4 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Arbuthnot, James
Lansley, Andrew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Leigh, Edward


Baldry, Tony
Letwin, Oliver


Bercow, John
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lidington, David


Blunt, Crispin
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Boswell, Tim
Loughton, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brady, Graham
MacKay, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Madel, Sir David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Malins, Humfrey


Burns, Simon
Maples, John


Butterfill, John
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cash, William
May, Mrs Theresa


Clappison, James
Moss, Malcolm


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Nicholls, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Ottaway, Richard



Page, Richard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Paice, James


Cran, James
Paterson, Owen


Day, Stephen
Pickles, Eric


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Prior, David


Duncan, Alan
Randall, John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Evans, Nigel
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fabricant, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fallon, Michael
Ruffley, David


Flight, Howard
St Aubyn, Nick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fraser, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Gale, Roger
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Garnier, Edward
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gibb, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
Steen, Anthony


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Streeter, Gary


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Swayne, Desmond


Gray, James
Syms, Robert


Green, Damian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Greenway, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hague, Rt Hon William
Townend, John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Tredinnick, David


Hammond, Philip
Trend, Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Tyrie, Andrew


Hayes, John
Viggers, Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Walter, Robert


Horam, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wilkinson, John


Hunter, Andrew
Willetts, David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wilshire, David


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Johnson Smith,
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey



Key, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Mr. Nigel Waterson.





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ainger, Nick
Dalyell, Tarn


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Alexander, Douglas
Darvill, Keith


Allan, Richard
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Allen, Graham
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davidson, Ian


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Ashton, Joe
Dawson, Hilton


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Dean, Mrs Janet


Barnes, Harry
Denham, John


Bayley, Hugh
Dismore, Andrew


Beard, Nigel
Dobbin, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Donohoe, Brian H


Begg, Miss Anne
Doran, Frank


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Dowd, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Drew, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Drown, Ms Julia


Bennett, Andrew F
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bermingham, Gerald
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Boateng, Paul
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brake, Tom
Ennis, Jeff


Brand, Dr Peter
Fatchett, Derek


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fisher, Mark


Buck, Ms Karen
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Burden, Richard
Flint, Caroline


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burnett, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Byers, Stephen
Galbraith, Sam


Cable, Dr Vincent
Galloway, George


Cabom, Richard
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cann, Jamie
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Casale, Roger
Gorrie, Donald


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chaytor, David
Grocott, Bruce


Chidgey, David
Hain, Peter


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)



Hancock, Mike


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Harris, Dr Evan


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Healey, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clelland, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clwyd, Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Coleman, Iain
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cooper, Yvette
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoey, Kate


Corston, Ms Jean
Home Robertson, John


Cotter, Brian
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Hope, Phil


Cox, Tom
Hopkins, Kelvin


Crausby, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, John (Homchurch)
Howells, Dr Kim






Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moriey, Elliot


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mudie, George


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mullin, Chris


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hutton, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


Illsley, Eric
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Ingram, Adam
Öpik, Lembit


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jenkins, Brian
Pearson, Ian


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pendry, Tom


Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)
Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)
Pond, Chris



Pope, Greg


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Purchase, Ken


Kemp, Fraser
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kidney, David
Rapson, Syd


Kilfoyle, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kirkwood, Archy
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rendel, David


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rogers, Allan


Laxton, Bob
Rooker, Jeff


Lepper, David
Rooney, Terry


Leslie, Christopher
Rowlands, Ted


Levitt, Tom
Roy, Frank


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Linton, Martin
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Livingstone, Ken
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lock, David
Salter, Martin


McAllion, John
Sanders, Adrian


McAvoy, Thomas
Savidge, Malcolm


McCabe, Steve
Sawford, Phil


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonagh, Siobhain
Shaw, Jonathan


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McFall, John
Singh, Marsha


Mclsaac, Shona
Skinner, Dennis


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McLeish, Henry



McNulty, Tony
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McWalter, Tony
Snape, Peter


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Soley, Clive


Mallaber, Judy
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mandelson, Peter
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marek, Dr John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stevenson, George


Martlew, Eric
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Maxton, John
Stinchcombe, Paul


Meale, Alan
Stoate, Dr Howard


Merron, Gillian
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Michael, Alun
Stringer, Graham


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stunell, Andrew


Milbum, Alan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Moore, Michael
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Taylor, David (NWLeics)





Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Webb, Steve


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
White, Brian


Timms, Stephen
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Todd, Mark
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Touhig, Don
Willis, Phil


Trickett, Jon
Winnick, David


Truswell, Paul
Wise, Audrey


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wood, Mike


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Worthington, Tony


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wray, James


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tyler, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wallace, James
Wyatt, Derek


Walley, Ms Joan



Ward, Ms Claire
Tellers for the Noes:


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. David Jamieson and


Watts, David
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Forth: Even a casual perusal of the clause would lead the Committee to conclude that it is either a bit of a tease or deliberately obscure. The very first word of the clause, "If, leaves us in some doubt about the Government's intentions. We might expect their intentions to be somewhat clearer at this stage, the Green Paper notwithstanding. [Interruption.] We are immediately confronted with the possibility that— [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Only one Member should be addressing the Chamber. We cannot have conversations in the Chamber.

Mr. Forth: We are left with the possibility that the Secretary of State may direct the Local Government Commission, or he may not. I assume that it is plausible that the Secretary of State may not give such a direction, in which case would we be entitled to make certain assumptions about the way in which the matter would proceed? Presumably, given the indication we have already had of the sort of numbers involved in the assembly, it would not be unreasonable to assume one member per borough. That is a straightforward and workable assumption. From that would flow the further assumption that it would be one member per borough elected on a first-past-the-post system, which would be clear and well understood by Londoners. It would be a straightforward approach.
Matters then become more complicated because, as I read the clause—the Minister will clarify this in due course—if the Secretary of State were to decide to give a direction to the Local Government Commission, that would lead to the provisions in subsection (l)(a). I am genuinely intrigued because that ties the Secretary of State's hands and, therefore, those of the Local Government Commission. It refers to "showing the electoral areas"—that is plural—
into which it recommends that Greater London should be divided".
That appears to preclude the possibility of London being one area for the purpose of the election. One distinct possibility being considered by those who are more in favour of proportional representation than I am is that


London would be a single area with a single list from which the electorate could choose its members, but the clause clearly says "areas". That is quite a strong hint from the Government that they are precluding the possibility of one approach that could be taken under a system of proportional representation.
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but that seems an odd approach if the Government genuinely have an open mind. If they decide not to go down the straightforward route that I would prefer of one member per borough, first past the post—which is easily understood, something to which Londoners could readily relate, and would give the size of assembly that the Government have said that they would prefer—surely the Secretary of State would want to direct the commission to look at a number of other ways of organising the election. But there is the problem of the wording as one of the ways that could be pursued will not be allowed, if I read the Bill correctly. Of course, we all know that it is hazardous for an hon. Member to read and interpret a Bill, but we must do it to elucidate the Government's intentions.
The clause then refers—it is now more logical—to the number of areas and members and directs the commission to state
the name by which it recommends that each such electoral area should be known.
As I have already said, if we stuck to the straightforward traditional approach, that would not be a requirement because the areas would be the familiar boroughs. That would be elegant and straightforward. If we give some artificial name to areas, we must immediately ask what sort of relationship voters in London would feel they had with the areas cobbled together by the commission under the direction of the Secretary of State.

Sir Paul Beresford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the position is even more difficult? As I have tried to point out in interventions and in a brief speech, there could be more confusion. If the areas chosen are not coterminous with the boroughs, there will be difficulties with representation and even greater difficulties with discussion and argument between the two tiers of the boroughs and the assembly and the relationship between the representatives of the assembly and the areas that the boroughs partially cover.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. There is potential confusion from the attempt to group boroughs into the sort of areas that underlie the wording in the clause. Presumably, one of the options hinted at in the clause, if I read it correctly, is that the electoral areas could be the existing European Parliament constituencies, which gives the possibility of 10 areas for London. We are then in a little difficulty: would the number of members of the assembly divide neatly by 10 or would there be variable numbers per area? Would there be sufficient members in each of the 10 areas to give meaning to anything other than a first-past-the-post system?

Mr. Pickles: If my hon. Friend is right and the number of members will not be divisible by 10, and if a system other than first past the post is used, how will electors be able to get rid of someone elected to the assembly who they feel has let them down?

Mr. Forth: That is a valid and searching question—it is typical of my hon. Friend—but it is not one which I feel

obliged to answer as I am not defending such a method of election. The Committee must explore the possibilities that lie within clause 7.
It is striking that there is almost infinite cause for confusion and very little hope of clarity emerging from the process described in the clause. Perhaps Ministers have some as yet unrevealed desire and well worked-out plan up their sleeve—having undergone the sham process of issuing a Green Paper—but they will not say. Perhaps they will say to the commission, "This is what we want to do." If so, Ministers might do us all a favour, shortening events considerably—I am trying to be helpful—by telling us what is in their minds, short-circuiting all the anguish that I am going through right now.
Worse than Ministers having a well thought-out, predetermined plan would be if—heaven forfend—they had not a clue of what they would do about electoral arrangements and were groping through a fog of confusion, hoping that the Local Government Commission will get them off the hook. That would not do.
Depending on the nature of the directions given by the Secretary of State on whether my analysis of that key word "areas", in the plural, ties the commission's hands— as I suggest that it will—and on whether it is likely that the number of assembly members that Ministers have suggested they would prefer fits in with the number of European constituencies, or with some other formulation that I have not yet been able to devise myself, we shall have in London under the proposals a satisfactory system that makes sense to Londoners and induces them to vote, providing some accountability and identifiability of electors with representatives, or we shall not.

Mr. Lansley: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is proceeding on the basis that the commission, under the direction that it will be given, is to divide the total number of members into the electoral areas? What if Ministers plan to have an additional member election system for the assembly, by which a number of assembly members will be elected on an all-London basis while others will be elected on a constituency basis? How will the commission interpret the Government's intentions when the direction in the Bill seems simply to assume that the total number of members will be divided into the number of electoral areas?

Mr. Forth: Undoubtedly, we shall shortly receive an answer to that question—although, if I were my hon. Friend, I would not hold my breath.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has led me very neatly to the next subsection, which provides that the direction will specify both the number of electoral areas and the total number of members. Such a direction will leave to the hapless commission the job of making sense of the electoral system that will be devised—which must make sense not only in representative terms, by representing the people of London, but in the nature of the assembly itself. He has very perceptively asked whether one can make sense of an alternative member system, for example, in a system consisting of such a relatively small assembly and a relatively small number of members.
There is a real danger that Ministers have painted themselves into a corner by having predetermined a smallish assembly for an area as enormous as London.
By the by, is it not interesting that Scotland, which has fewer people than Greater London, will be given an assembly with, from memory, 170 members? That size of assembly is deemed necessary properly to represent the people of Scotland; yet it is thought that Londoners—with the huge variety of views and circumstances in London— will be represented properly by a very small assembly. That question has not yet been answered.

Sir Paul Beresford: I take my right hon. Friend's point about the Government painting themselves into a corner but, as he pointed out, the clause begins with the little word "If, and the Bill later states that if the Government do not like the report, they can throw it back and start again.

Mr. Forth: Indeed; I am sure that when we come to clause 8 we shall want to explore that point in some depth. Like my hon. Friend, I have been intrigued by what might happen between the draft report being published and the report achieving its final form. However, if I were to be tempted to deal prematurely with that clause, I suspect that you, Mr. Martin, might take a dim view of that, and I do not want to incur your wrath at this early stage in the proceedings.
I want to give colleagues the chance to express their views, but I hope that I have raised sufficient legitimate questions on the clause to show that we need much more clarity from the Government—it is not an unreasonable request—before we decide how to vote. Otherwise, the Government will effectively be expecting us to sign a blank cheque for them, and that is something which I should be very reluctant to do at this early stage.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We support the clause. Logically, if one sets up a body to examine boundaries, one has to give it a brief and require it to do certain things. It seems to us that the clause sets out just what the body has to do—it must consider electoral areas and the number of people to be elected, it has to suggest a name for the electoral areas, and so on.
The clause is logical and keeps all the options open. If the Government make a terrible mistake and come up with a ghastly and completely unrepresentative electoral system, for which I shall condemn them for ever, terrible things will happen to them but, more important, the clause still allows them to deal with the situation and to have another system.
It is no secret to Ministers and certainly not to you, Mr. Martin, that I and my colleagues sought to table an amendment to change the body in question in clause 7 from the Local Government Commission for England to the Boundary Commission for England. I raise the matter only because I was told that although it was a perfectly proper subject for debate, the long title of the Bill would first need to have been amended in that way. I just want to flag up the fact that it is more appropriate that the issue is considered by the boundary commission than by the Local Government Commission because we are not debating local government.
The Minister for Transport in London may not have realised it, but at one point she mentioned power to local government, and other hon. Members occasionally did the

same. Let us be politically corrected when we have made mistakes, because we are talking not about local government but about regional government. Therefore, the Local Government Commission is being given a job that it has not traditionally been asked to do. I accept that we do not have a regional boundary commission at the moment, but it would have been better for the issue to be considered by the Boundary Commission for England.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Boundary Commission for England is the proper body to deal with such matters in that it can hold hearings and has the expertise to adjust boundaries? The Local Government Commission is set up to deal with the nuts and bolts of how local government works and should have nothing to do with deciding electoral areas.

Mr. Hughes: I accept those points. Whatever the difference between the hon. Gentleman's views and mine, I am troubled that we are remitting this particular task to this particular body. My colleagues and I would certainly have been happier if the task had gone to the Boundary Commission for England because it effectively relates to parliamentary constituencies.
I should be grateful for an explanation of why it cannot go to the boundary commission, if indeed it cannot. I should like to hear the arguments so that I can be persuaded. If there are no strong arguments, I should be grateful if Ministers would reflect on the possibility of amendments in the other place to allow the relevant body to be the Boundary Commission for England.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on the clause, which has several flaws. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has referred to some. I had the opportunity to interrupt him briefly on one significant flaw which needs a response from the Minister. No decision appears to have been taken on the electoral system, but the power that the Secretary of State seeks under the clause would not leave scope for places on the assembly to be set aside if there were an additional member system. That option is being precluded, just as the drafting of the clause may have precluded the further option—although not one that I advocate—of treating the whole of London as one constituency.
There are three further problems with the clause. The first was referred to in the previous debate: it would be better if the clause made it clear that we were operating on the basis of first past the post. I shall not revisit those arguments in detail, but it behoves us to remember that democracy is not simply about proportionality, but about accountability, representativeness and the efficiency with which the will of the electorate is converted into political action by a legislature. On all those counts, a first-past-the-post system has a great deal to commend it.
The second problem is that nowhere does the clause— or those following it that govern the manner in which the Secretary of State is to exercise the powers—refer to the opportunity to refer such directions back to Parliament. We are legislating for the Secretary of State, with the subsequent action of the Local Government Commission, to determine a key part of our constitution: the manner in which the first of the regional bodies in England—it may


be the only one—is to be elected. When we discuss the legislation on Scotland and Wales, I imagine that we shall debate the manner of election in some detail.
The arrangements for London are to be taken out of the hands of Parliament and handed over to the Secretary of State, operating with the advice of the Local Government Commission. As I read the Bill, not only can the Secretary of State make directions, but if he does not like the answer he can send it back for a different one. Clause 10 would allow the Secretary of State to require the Local Government Commission to take certain matters into account and to be guided by him on how it should respond on those matters. Great discretion is being handed over to the Secretary of State on the key issue of the electoral system.
My third problem relates to timing. Ministers have referred to consultation and the responses to the Green Paper that was issued some time ago. Several questions have been asked about the electoral system, covering the boundaries of the electoral areas and the manner in which elections are to take place. We do not know the character of the responses and what analysis Ministers have made of how to respond. We know that there were only 1,200 responses. The former Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), has reminded me that more than 10,000 responses from Londoners were received in the 1994 consultation exercise. None the less, those 1,200 views were made in response to the Green Paper and they should be taken into account. That is why we are debating the clause and the manner in which it is to be interpreted by the Secretary of State.
There are significant deficiencies in the clause which ought to be considered on Report or in another place so that we can make the legislation more acceptable.

Mr. Pickles: I would not have spoken on the clause if I had not been inspired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who gave us a most eloquent explanation of its inadequacies. Some thought needs to be given to whether the Local Government Commission should be involved, as the Government suggest, or whether the boundary commission should be involved, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggests.
I believe that on this occasion the Government are right and that the Local Government Commission, rather than the boundary commission, should be involved. Throughout the debate, there has been discussion on whether we are dealing with regional or with local government. I believe that we are dealing with some form of super-local government and not with regional government. If the new system is to work well, it must operate with the consent of the boroughs and in co-operation with them.
A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity of giving evidence to the Local Government Commission and I have seen it working in various parts of the United Kingdom. It brings a local perspective to devising the size of electoral divisions, the boundaries and the number of representatives within a ward. I was very impressed by the way in which the commission would look carefully at the size of local communities and try to group them.
Should a strategic authority differ from conventional local government? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested, it seems from

clause 7(2) that it might be possible to have just one local government division. Alternatively, we might consider the boundaries of European Parliament constituencies or borough boundaries.
I understand that there is a desire to break the constituency and ward links, and to look at London as a whole strategically. It is suggested that, if constituency and ward links are broken, we shall get better government. I do not believe that that will happen. A political class will be created that is impervious to criticism from the public. There is no way in which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, electors will be able to remove members of the assembly who have failed. They will be cushioned from that and they will be able to live with any decisions that they care to make. Therefore, they can make decisions that upset people's rights in respect of property or individual liberty and a responsive democracy can do nothing about it.
A very small return—a mere 1,200 who responded out of a population larger than that of Scotland or Wales— was concerned about the way in which elections should be conducted. It is usually assumed that we elect people to be responsible to us and not to disappear into an obscure authority that cannot respond. If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is correct in saying that we are moving to a new system of regional government, we have reached a key point in our devolving constitution and we have to get it right now. We have to lay down clear guidance about the elections.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as it is unlikely that I shall have the chance to speak. Does he agree that the bottom line is that, if we discourage the electorate from voting, the system will have failed?

Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend makes a very perceptive point. It is possible that the electors can achieve nothing by voting, as they will not be able to remove unpopular members of the strategic authority. That will erode confidence in the process of democracy generally and the strength of the strategic authority.
To avoid dividing the Committee, the Minister will have to respond in detail to all the points raised.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I did not expect to participate in the debate, but I am delighted to make a short, succinct speech. We are considering far-reaching, fundamental reforms. The House relies on democracy. If we discourage people from voting because the system is unappealing in one way or another, we shall do democracy in Britain no favours whatever.
I should like to comment on two issues: the system of proportional representation envisaged in the clause and whether the Local Government Commission or the boundary commission should decide the electoral areas.
I cannot understand the rush for proportional representation in the Scottish Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and in Europe. No doubt we shall have a referendum on whether we should have proportional representation for Westminster elections. Proportional representation does not produce fair votes; it simply encourages minorities. If the level pavement party managed to get enough votes in the London election,


it would be represented on the London assembly. I make that suggestion in jest, but it would be a one-issue party, when everyone on both sides of the Chamber should be concerned with the promotion of London. Unless we promote London to the wider world, what on earth is the point of the Bill? We are about promoting the excellence of London for tourism and trade and for the benefit of the general standard of living for the people of London. What on earth does encouraging minorities do for that?
I have only a few minutes left to speak—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Obviously Labour Members are not enjoying my speech very much and that is because it hurts.

Mr. Pickles: As we have to decide whether the boundary commission or the Local Government Commission should decide the electoral areas, let me remind my hon. Friend that sitting in the Chamber is a former member of the Local Government Commission, a potential candidate for the London mayor. I wonder whether we could tempt her to say which would be best— the Local Government Commission or the boundary commission.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend raises a very good point. One wonders whether the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) will be acting the part of Elizabeth I, the Lord Mayor of London or whoever she might be when she stands for the post. My hon. Friend leads me down paths of temptation down which I should not be led.
The issue is whether we should use the Local Government Commission or the boundary commission. I attended the local boundary commission hearing when it was trying to pronounce on the Gloucestershire constituency boundaries. That hearing was conducted by an eminent lawyer. People from all interested parties in Gloucestershire gave views. That is the right forum in which to pronounce on boundaries—whether they be constituencies in London or wards that make up electoral areas in London.
I ask the Minister to treat the issue seriously. I hope that he will respond to it in detail, when I allow him to get to his feet. The Local Government Commission is concerned with the ethics and working of local government and how it should organise its administrative processes rather than the individual boundaries of wards or constituencies.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I trust that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is not disappointed that it is a she and not a he who rises to respond.
The speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), in support of the clause, was in the main complete. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I regret that he is not in his place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Here he is."] Just in time. He questioned whether the proposals in clause 7 should be best vested in the Local Government Commission and argued for such functions to be vested in the boundary commission. I well understood his argument.
There is disagreement between the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and the Government over the definition that the GLA is regional government.
We regard it as citywide government. Therefore, we believe that it is more appropriate that the Local Government Commission should engage in the functions, should it be necessary. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the whole basis of the clause is entirely dependent on the people of London voting yes in the referendum.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady was right; I made it into the Chamber just on time. I am interested in, but slightly concerned by, the comment—which is right in itself—that she has just made. The GLA would be citywide government. My understanding of Labour party policy is that the GLA is also regional government and was intended to be the first of a series of regional governments. If the hon. Lady is now saying that the GLA will not be regional government, her right hon. and hon. Friends and other Members will be surprised to hear it.

Ms Jackson: I can only repeat that it has always been our presentation, representation, perception and indeed commitment that the GLA represents citywide government. The hon. Gentleman may be confusing two issues. Clearly the Government have considered the possibility of regional government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are engaged in consultation on the regional development agencies. I repeat that it is our perception that the people of London will be best served—if they vote yes in the referendum—by the Local Government Commission.
The contributions from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for Cotswold were obfuscatory to the extent that, if mine were a less charitable nature, I would think that it was deliberate. However, I have a charitable nature and I am prepared to believe that the obfuscatory nature of their contributions was because they simply do not understand clause 7. It may be helpful to the Committee if I define the purpose of the clause.
Clause 7 confers new functions on the Local Government Commission for England, requiring it—at the direction of the Secretary of State—to prepare a report in respect of electoral areas for any elected assembly established after the referendum. That is an important point. The powers given to the Secretary of State under the clause to direct the commission will not be used—I emphasise that point—until there has been an affirmative vote in the referendum, by which stage the Government will have published a White Paper setting out direct proposals. We will make clear our proposals for the election method and the constituencies.
Clause 7 requires the commission, at the direction of the Secretary of State, to prepare a report recommending the electoral areas into which Greater London should be divided for the purpose of electing the members of any assembly established following the referendum, the number of members who should be elected for each electoral area and the name by which each electoral area should be known. It also requires that any direction made by the Secretary of State must specify the total number of electoral areas and the total number of members for which the recommendations in the Commission's report must provide. That is a sensible provision which is designed to


speed the process of establishing the GLA after an affirmative vote in the referendum. Conservative Members have made no case and offered no argument for its removal.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): I will comment briefly on the clause. The commission will be established with agreed terms of reference and objectives. It will then deliberate and report back. The Secretary of State may not like the recommendations that the commission makes, but would it be democratic to overrule those recommendations as clause 9 would allow?
What would be the Secretary of State's purpose in overriding the commission's recommendations? Can the Minister explain in what circumstances the Secretary of State might see fit to direct the commission to review its findings? Could those circumstances include political expediency or convenience? It is because we have doubts about the purpose of clause 9 that we cannot support it, but—given the late hour—we will not push the issue any further. We will recommend that it is considered in greater detail in another place.

Mr. Raynsford: The clause enables the Secretary of State, when a report has been submitted under clause 8, to direct the commission to review the recommendations made in the report, and to submit a further report making revised recommendations. It is a fail-safe provision, designed to ensure that the Local Government Commission can be asked to look again at its recommendations or any part of its recommendations, once it has delivered its report.
The provision is well precedented. [Interruption.] Before Conservative Members start crowing, let me remind them that it takes as its model section 15(6) of the Local Government Act 1992, which was used more than once by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he was Secretary of State for the Environment in the previous Administration.
Circumstances in which such a provision might come into play could include when the commission had changed its mind so much between the draft and final reports that people locally felt that they had not been given sufficient opportunity to comment on the substance of what the commission was proposing in its final report. Alternatively, representations might be made to the Secretary of State on publication of the final report of such importance that they justified the commission being asked to reconsider what it had recommended.
The provision is not about giving the Secretary of State the power to second guess the Local Government Commission. Indeed, it provides only for the commission to revise—to re-examine its decision, and not necessarily to come up with new recommendations—but, without that power, there would be no provision for the commission to take what may be a necessary second look. In the light of those comments, I trust that hon. Members will be satisfied that our intentions are entirely sensible.

11 pm

Mr. Clifton-Brown: In reviewing clause 8, can the Minister tell us, as the Minister for Transport in London failed to do, why, technically, the commission should consider the Local Government Commission's recommendations rather than those of the boundary commission? We have not had an answer to that technical question, which has been raised by several hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

PAYMENTS BY SECRETARY OF STATE TO COMMISSION

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: What do the Government estimate will be the costs of clauses 11 and 12? They provide for money to be spent, and now is the time for a Minister to put on record the estimated costs. Conservative Members sometimes complain that the exercise will cost the taxpayer a great deal, but we think that it could be cheap to set up. What advice does the Minister have about costs?

Mr. Raynsford: It is impossible to give an estimate at this stage, because it depends entirely on what remit is given to the Local Government Commission. Were it to involve a lengthy and protracted examination of complex constituencies, there would obviously be greater costs than if it were a relatively simple matter relating to existing boundaries that might need some modest modification.
I cannot give the answer that the hon. Gentleman requests, but there is no question of any expenditure being made until after a positive referendum result, by which stage there will have been a statement in the White Paper of the Government's intentions in relation to the boundaries. We will then be in a much better position to give him the information that he seeks. I hope that he accepts that the provision is sensible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

EXPENDITURE

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I accept entirely that the matter may not be elaborated until after the referendum and that no money will be spent before then, but it would be helpful to know what the Minister's advisers suggest that the expenditure in connection with the referendum will be. Someone must have done an estimate. This does not depend on the boundary commission; it involves setting up the arrangements for the referendum. A ballpark figure would interest those who read our proceedings.

Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman refers to the explanatory memorandum, he will find that we have already indicated that we expect a maximum provision of


about £20 million for preparatory arrangements for bringing the new authority into existence. Once again, no expenditure will be incurred until after a positive vote in a referendum. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

SHORT TITLE

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is a very important clause. It says that it is the short title, but the Bill should not, by any definition, have a short title. Had we known what the Government were going to say in Committee, we would have sought to amend the short title to read that the Act should be cited as the "Greater London Authority (Referendum), You Can Have Any Choice You Like For Democracy in London Provided It's the One We Give You and You Won't Have Any Other Alternative Act 1997."
The serious point is that it is disappointing that, at the end of the Committee stage, the Government are still wedded to giving the people of London only the Government's choice. We are grateful, however, that the Minister conceded that that is only a matter of pragmatism, and that it would be acceptable if two questions that do the job could be formulated. We have already started work on that. I am sure that the Minister is looking forward, as are others, to the two-question alternative. I am sure that it will be persuasive and that he will find it impossible not to support it.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I trust that the hon. Gentleman has not made this point simply because he neglected to

table an amendment and now regrets it. His additions would not have made this a short title but an unnecessarily long one. Clause 13 specifies that the Bill, if enacted,
may be cited as the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1997.
It is a matter of convenience. The proposed title is short and appropriate to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

PETITION

Harold Wood Hospital

Mr. Eric Pickles: I present a petition on behalf of my constituents relating to the location of an accident and emergency unit in a hospital close to my constituency. They are concerned that, after a lengthy and fair inquiry, the recommendation that it be sited at Harold Wood may be overturned. It has been signed by 16,500 electors in my constituency and states
The Petition of residents of the parliamentary constituency of Brentwood and Ongar and patients of Harold Wood Hospital
Declare that it is in the interest of local people, and in the strategic interest of the National Health Service, to build the new accident and emergency unit for Barking, Havering and Brentwood at Harold Wood Hospital
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons support their plea for this much needed unit
And the petitioners remain, etc

To lie upon the Table.

Residential Boat Owners (London)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Dr. Vincent Cable: It is a pleasure to raise this matter on the Adjournment, albeit at a very late hour, and to resume a dialogue with the Minister for Transport in London, albeit on a very different subject. Perhaps I can summarise briefly the essence of my concern. I am concerned with the behaviour of the Port of London Authority—a public trust and a statutory public authority—which has been behaving irresponsibly. It has imposed large increases in mooring charges—in effect, rents on boat dwellers—on the tidal waters of the Thames in a way that is likely to cause considerable distress. The increases will cause many residential boat owners to leave their accommodation because they are simply unable to pay owing to sharp increases for which there has been no consultation.
I ask the Minister to have a fresh look at whether she can intervene informally, not by using her statutory authority but by using her good offices to bring the parties together to seek an amicable resolution. Failing that—and if the PLA continues to behave in an arbitrary and unsatisfactory way—I ask her to use her statutory authority in terms of the appointment of the non-executive directors of the PLA. Looking further ahead, I ask her to look at whether a more effective system of regulation— possibly an ombudsman—needs to be introduced to protect people from the arbitrary misuses of authority.
This is important, and goes way beyond my narrow constituency concern. There is a broad issue of principle here, and the Labour party's election commitment to provide security in housing is very much part of that. A group of people have been rendered extremely insecure as a result of a large increase in what is effectively their rent. Many already have insecure tenure arrangements, as the arrangements that pertain to boat owners are often not as secure as for those with normal property relationships. The already high level of insecurity will be enhanced by these large increases.
I am speaking on behalf of a substantial number of boat owners in my constituency—approximately 230—the majority of whom are affected by the increases. However, there is a larger community in the country—about 30,000 people occupying 15,000 boats—who will be following this discussion with considerable interest.
The broader interest that I want to highlight relates not simply to the particular problem of the boat dwellers but to the question of the accountability of quangos—in this case, it is a completely, rather than quasi-autonomous, agency, and could be called a "cango"—and the ability of the Government to call them to account for unsatisfactory behaviour. In a letter to me, the Minister said that this was not a matter in which the Department played a part, and that the changes in question were a commercial matter for the Port of London Authority. I would beg to differ: that is, in part, an error. If it is true, it is an extraordinary statement of the ministerial approach to accountability. The PLA is a public body and must be brought to account, and there are mechanisms by which the Government can do this. Let me give a little background. The system of tenure on the Thames and other waterways is extremely

complex. Many authorities are involved, but I am concerned only with the Port of London Authority, which was established in 1968. It was given a clear statutory duty; not, as the Minister has suggested, to behave commercially—that is not the language of the Act. The Act says that the PLA should levy the
best charges that can reasonably be obtained …. excluding any elements of monopoly power.
The principles behind that stricture have been observed for the past 10 years with an amicable arrangement between the Residential Boat Owners Association and the PLA. For 10 years, a general formula, based on the lengths of boats, was applied. It was a simple administrative procedure with relatively low costs which was accepted by all parties. What has caused that to break down is that the PLA has arbitrarily and without consultation imposed a new system without any redress for the boat owners.
Our objections fall into two parts—they relate partly to the process and partly to the charges. As regards the process, the PLA argues—this is part of the Act—that the boat owners can resort to arbitration. In correspondence with me and some of the boat owners, the Minister seems to feel that the concept of arbitration in this case is reasonable. I ask her to consider why, in practice, it is not. Many boat owners cannot resort to arbitration, including the substantial number who are, in effect, tenants of licensees and so have no direct access to arbitration. That is the most vulnerable category, because they can be asked to quit their moorings at 28 days' notice. They are very insecure. I visited some of them last Friday; many were reluctant even to be photographed because of their insecurity. They are not able to pursue the arbitration route.
There is the broader issue of the difficulty of trying to introduce arbitration into such disputes. I shall draw an analogy. If an employer cut the wages of his workers by 50 per cent. and said, "Fine, if you don't like it, you can always have individual arbitration on your individual wages," we would consider that to be a breach of the concept of collective bargaining. Surely the Minister, in her political capacity, accepts that collective bargaining is essential to protect vulnerable groups.
If one of the water authorities increased charges by 200 per cent., 300 per cent. or 400 per cent.—which is the size of increase that many boat dwellers now face—and said, "If individual water consumers want to dispute this, they can take us to individual arbitration; they can take their solicitor along and fight this in the courts," we would regard that as a gross abuse and grossly unsatisfactory. We have regulators to manage such a problem. Asking individual boat owners to pursue the route of individual arbitration is totally inappropriate to the problem. The process is wrong and arbitrary, and, I would argue, an example of maladministration.
I referred to the terms of the 1968 Act. The Port of London Authority is not required merely to observe commercial principles. The Minister is right to point to the fact that it must be commercial, but it must avoid the misuse of monopoly power. It is clear that in this case there is a monopoly, because there is a gross excess demand for moorings. Individual boat dwellers are not able to pull anchor and go somewhere else: they do not have that discretion, so we are talking about an abuse of a monopoly.
An important factor is that the increased charges in no way reflect any improvement in services. I visited some of the moorings at the end of last week, and saw that large amounts of driftwood had accumulated over months. The Port of London Authority makes no attempt to provide services to those people. That stands in considerable contrast to some of the other authorities. The waterways authority imposes charges that are somewhat higher than the present PLA charges, although much less than the new ones, but, unlike the PLA, it offers in return a comprehensive range of services on thousands of miles of canals and rivers.
The Minister wrote to me and explained that she expected the Port of London Authority to operate commercially. What exactly does that mean? I have a copy of the PLA's annual report and accounts, which contains about 10 pages of balance sheets and cash-flow statements. There is not a single reference to the charges earned from boat owners. It is an utterly trivial element within the overall accounting framework of that corporation. That is not surprising. According to my rough calculation, the additional revenue that it will earn from these steep increases is about £10,000, which is ridiculously small for an organisation with a turnover of £20 million: it barely pays for half the salary of one of its non-executive directors. It is a trivially small part of its overall commercial operation. The imposition of this increase was an oversight by top management and had little to do with hard commercial principles. If the PLA were seriously interested in applying commercial principles, it would address itself to anomalies such as the fact that pleasure craft are not charged navigation duties.
I now come to what the Minister can do to alleviate the situation. The least that she can do—not acting in a statutory capacity but simply as a reasonable person who has oversight, albeit indirectly, of the Port of London Authority—is to call in the parties to get them to discuss matters, as we and the Residential Boat Owners Association have requested. I find it difficult to fathom why she is reluctant to do so. I do not know whether she feels that I would be bringing along a group of roughnecks who will break the crockery at her Department and behave irresponsibly. I remind her that the honorary president of the association is Madam Speaker. It is a respectable organisation and its members simply wish to sit down and discuss matters with the PLA.
We are asking the Minister, in a reasonable tone, simply to hold a conversation. If she finds that difficult and if the PLA persists in imposing highly unreasonable charges, she might consider the use of her statutory power, as she does have some. That power lies in the appointment of the non-executive directors. I remind her who some of those people are. They were appointed under the previous Government and bear their stamp. For example, the chairman, Sir Brian Shaw, is paid £50,000 a year for a part-time job, which he doubles up with being chairman of the Automobile Association and a director of Enterprise Oil. The gentleman who was probably directly responsible for the increases is a Mr. C. W. Jonas. He has a £19,000 part-time salary and combines that work with being a director of Railtrack.
Those gentlemen have absolutely no background whatever in the sort of problems that I am describing— the problems of managing a sensitive relationship with

a group of home owners on the Thames. Their whole background is in commercial shipping—no doubt they are very competent at that. I ask the Minister to try to impose some of her authority on the PLA by asking one or other of those directors to stand down and, perhaps, to be replaced by someone who is a little more aware of the concerns of the houseboat owners.
Finally, as I do not want to prolong proceedings all night, I must ask the Minister to think about some of the long-term and wider implications of the issue. We have here a classic case of a public organisation with a very substantial monopoly power that is able to impose its will; what is required is either a regulator, or at the very least some form of ombudsman as a court of appeal. Neither exists in this case. Clearly, there is a strong case for a change of governance to bring greater accountability to bear.
I ask the Minister to study all those options but in the first instance, to look again—she has already rejected this option—at how she can intercede and produce more reasonable treatment in this case.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on obtaining this debate. First, it may be helpful to the House, Sir Alan, if—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are no longer in Committee.

Ms Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It may be helpful to the House if I say something about the constitution and statutory powers of the Port of London Authority, before dealing with the authority's relationship with residential boat owners on the river.
The PLA is the statutory harbour authority for the River Thames. It is a trust port with statutory responsibility for conservancy of the tidal River Thames. It owns much of the river bed and foreshore. The statutory provisions relating to the PLA are set out in the Port of London Act 1968. Under that Act, the PLA provides navigational services and is responsible for maintaining shipping channels, moorings and navigation lights. The authority is also responsible for licensing river works. In the case of houseboats, works licences are issued to cover the mooring points.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's points about requiring changes to the PLA, as I am sure he is aware the Department is conducting a review of trust ports. Accountability is one of the important factors that is being examined. We are also looking at the relationship to be established between the PLA and our proposed Greater London authority.
The PLA funds statutory functions by charging for services provided, including the issuing of works licences. The 1968 Act requires the charge for licences to be the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained having regard to all the circumstances of the case. The PLA regards that as "the market rate". Section 67 of the Act provides for disputes regarding charges to be considered by an independent arbitrator appointed by the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Arbitration in such cases should be possible at a reasonable cost to all parties involved, as the arbitrator will be able to assess the appropriateness of the charges being disputed without the need for a detailed legal case. I understand that it has rarely been necessary to resort to arbitration, as it has almost always been possible to reach a commercial agreement by negotiation.
There are 234 residential craft moored on the tidal Thames within the PLA's jurisdiction. Those craft range from floating, purpose-built two-storey houses and bungalows to Dutch-type barges, canal narrow boats and various other vessel conversions with much less living space. Residential craft are mainly concentrated on licensed moorings on both banks of the river between Cheyne walk in Chelsea and Swan island in Twickenham.
Six licensees have negotiated long-term agreements with the PLA's agents in respect of 99 of those craft. Fees have been set and reassessment criteria established for 20-to-60-year terms. A further 105 residential craft are moored at 11 separate locations on bulk licences held by seven licensees. The remaining 30 craft are held on river works licences granted to 23 individual licensees.
Thus, the current 234 moorings are licensed to 36 licensees. That means that the vast majority of occupiers are tenants of the licence holder. In those cases, there is no agreement whatever between the occupier of the boat and the Port of London Authority.
I shall now deal with the current dispute between boat owners and the Port of London Authority. In 1986, the PLA consulted the Residential Boat Owners Association and, at that time, arrangements were made for a rate per foot length to be applied to all residential craft moored on the tidal Thames and linked to the annual retail prices index. That arrangement continued until 1993, when the PLA gave notice to licence holders that a review would be undertaken in 1997.
In recent years, a number of new residential mooring developments have been licensed and the PLA's chartered surveyor agents have negotiated long-term agreements with new licensees. The current annual consideration agreements are for greater sums than those paid under the 1986 arrangements. In addition, the nature of houseboats has changed to some degree, with purpose-built floating houses and bungalows now appearing on residential moorings up and down the Thames.
The PLA was advised that an assessment based solely on the length of craft was no longer appropriate, and was not in accordance with the PLA's obligation to obtain the best consideration. Charging by craft length did not produce a market rate as it took no account of the amount of living area available in each dwelling.
Ninety-nine moorings are not subject to the current round of reassessments. Of the 135 that are currently being re-assessed, some 20 are licensed to individuals. To date, notice of the revised annual charge has been given to two bodies and three individuals in relation to 49 craft. The PLA has explained to those concerned the procedure for making objections to the charges. The

PLA's assessor would discuss the grounds for the objection with the licensee and, failing an agreement on the annual sum, an arbitrator would then be appointed, as provided for in the Port of London Act 1968.
All those so far reassessed have formally objected in accordance with the procedure that I have described. The Swan Island harbour at Twickenham, with 37 craft, has appointed a chartered surveyor to represent it in negotiations with the PLA. The Richmond Upon Thames Churches Housing Trust and the three private individuals have appointed the Residential Boat Owners Association to represent them. The remaining 86 moorings fall due for reassessment in the first quarter of 1998.
The Residential Boat Owners Association has recently written to me and to those hon. Members whose constituencies cover the Thames. The association wants the PLA to negotiate directly with the occupants of the houseboats rather than with the licensee of the mooring. That would be possible where the harbour legislation provides for the occupants of houseboats to have licences with the harbour authority, but that is the position for only a few occupants under the Port of London Act.
The Residential Boat Owners Association has asked the Government to intervene. The hon. Member for Twickenham has also asked Ministers to hold a meeting. I found the hon. Gentleman's remarks offensive. I would not disregard a request from people, even if they did break the crockery, and it is clearly a duty of Ministers to meet those who have concerns. I am not aware that his letter also contained a request for a meeting, but if he wishes to ask for one, I shall be happy to oblige.
My Department has no locus to intervene in disputes over mooring charges. However, my officials have raised with the PLA the concerns that have been expressed to me. The PLA has shown that it is keen to reach an agreement and that its agent is anxious to deal directly with the licence holders and those who are appointed to represent them. If that is not possible, there is, as I explained earlier, a procedure for objections which has been notified to licence holders. In the last resort, the Act gives them recourse to arbitration as a means of ensuring that the charges imposed are reasonable.
I accept that occupants who are the tenants of the licence holder are unable to use the arbitration route since the PLA is not levying a charge on them. The fact that all the reassessments made so far are subject to objections demonstrates that the licence holders are not simply accepting the revised charges. Therefore, it would appear that the objection procedure is working effectively, and that licence holders are taking steps to protect the interests of boat owners, who are, in effect, their tenants.
I hope that I have reassured the House that the procedures that are currently in force for the licensing of houseboats on the Thames make adequate provision for those who wish to object to the proposed increases in houseboat mooring charges.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve midnight.